ORDER : 1. In all these writ petitions, common question arises for consideration. Material facts leading to these writ petitions and the contentions raised are similar. Therefore, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.Nos.32950-951/2015 are filed by owners of land bearing Sy.No.154 which totally measures 1 acre 10 guntas and is situated at Ullalu Village in Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The entire extent of 1 acre 10 guntas comprised in this survey number has been acquired for formation of Sir M.Visweswaraiah Layout along with several other lands. Preliminary notification was issued on 15.04.2002 followed by final declaration dated 31.10.2002. They were issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’). Award was passed on 05.12.2002 which was approved on 03.01.2003. According to the stand taken by the BDA the amount has been kept in “R.D. Account” of the BDA. 3. Petitioners have approached this Court laying a challenge to the acquisition proceedings and seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed in terms of the provisions contained under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the New Act’). 4. Main contention of learned Senior counsel for petitioners is that though these lands were included in the notification and although nearly 13 years had lapsed as on the date of filing of the writ petition, neither compensation was paid nor possession was taken, therefore, it was a clear case of abandonment of the acquisition. It is further contended that respondent – Authorities had not formed any residential layout in and around petitioners’ land as per the scheme; several adjacent properties situated abutting the land of petitioners were denotified after final notification was issued. 5. In paragraph 8 of the grounds urged in these writ petitions, petitioners have contended that BDA had formed road using 29¾ guntas of land out of total extent of 1 acre 10 guntas and that they were not challenging the use of land for road. 5. In paragraph 8 of the grounds urged in these writ petitions, petitioners have contended that BDA had formed road using 29¾ guntas of land out of total extent of 1 acre 10 guntas and that they were not challenging the use of land for road. Even during the course of arguments, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners – Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy submits that petitioners do not claim any right in respect of the land measuring 29¾ guntas used for formation of road but were asserting their rights in respect of remaining portion of vacant land where petitioners had put up construction and possession of which had not been taken. 6. In support of the contention that possession of vacant portion of the land was not taken over, he invites the attention of the Court to the rejoinder filed by petitioners enclosing the proceedings of the BDA dated 24.07.2014. In this proceeding, it is clearly recorded that Sy. No.154 totally measured 1 acre 10 guntas; entire land was subject matter of acquisition; out of the same, 29¾ guntas had been utilized for formation of road and remaining 20¼ guntas was vacant and there was a temple of Anjaneyaswamy in existence in the said portion and therefore, no layout had been formed in the said portion of the land. It is, therefore, urged by referring to this document that admittedly, as on 24.07.2014, possession of vacant land measuring 20¼ guntas had not been taken over and in addition, compensation payable was neither paid to petitioners nor deposited before the Civil Court, therefore, acquisition proceedings having not been completed it was a clear case of abandonment of acquisition by the BDA and resultant lapse of the same. He further points out that dehors Section 24(2) of the New Act, petitioners are entitled to seek such declaration. 7. The fact that compensation determined in respect of this land has not been paid is evident from the endorsement issued by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12.04.2016 which is produced before the Court along with a memo. In the said endorsement, it is stated that compensation amount was kept in “R.D. Account of the BDA”. This factual position with regard to the amount being kept in deposit with the BDA is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the BDA. 8. In the said endorsement, it is stated that compensation amount was kept in “R.D. Account of the BDA”. This factual position with regard to the amount being kept in deposit with the BDA is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the BDA. 8. Main contention urged by Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for the BDA is that possession of the land has been taken over as was evident from the mahazar drawn on 22.02.2003 as per AnnexureR1 and the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as per AnenxureR2. It is further urged by learned counsel that the vacant land measuring 20¼ guntas has been earmarked for park in the approved plan, copy of which is produced at AnnexureR3 and therefore, it cannot be said that actual possession of the land has not been taken over. It is urged by him that even assuming that compensation has not been either paid to petitioners or deposited before the Civil Court it would only clothe the petitioners with a right to seek compensation along with interest as is permissible under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioners cannot seek a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed. He further points out that Section 24(2) of the New Act has no application to the facts of the present case because the acquisition is under the BDA Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act. 9. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.32917-933/2015 claim that they are the purchasers of sites of different dimensions formed in Sy.Nos.152/2 and 152/3 of Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. According to them, layout was formed by the original owners in these two survey numbers as back as in the year 1994 before issuance of preliminary notification and the original owners sold the revenue sites formed in the year 1994 in favour of these petitioners and petitioners have constructed residential houses and have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective sites. It is their case that they had approached the BDA seeking to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of their sites. However, the BDA did not drop the acquisition proceedings. 10. It is urged that 1st petitioner is the owner of the land and has joined other petitioners in filing these writ petitions. It is their case that they had approached the BDA seeking to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of their sites. However, the BDA did not drop the acquisition proceedings. 10. It is urged that 1st petitioner is the owner of the land and has joined other petitioners in filing these writ petitions. Other petitioners viz., petitioner No.2 purchased the site formed in the layout during the year 1995. Petitioner No.3 has purchased two sites based on the General Power of Attorney executed on 05.11.1993 vide sale deed dated 09.12.2003. Petitioner No.4 has purchased the site by way of sale deed dated 17.03.1994. Petitioner No.5 has purchased the site by way of sale deed dated 16.02.2001. Petitioner No.6 claims to have purchased under the GPA on 25.01.1996. Petitioner No.7 claims to have purchased the site under the registered GPA dated 09.10.1995. Petitioner No.8 has purchased the site vide sale deed dated 29.08.2009. Petitioner Nos.9, 10 and 11 have purchased sites through registered sale deeds on 23.12.1994. Petitioner No.12 has purchased the site on 25.02.2010 through a registered sale deed. Petitioner No.13 claims to have purchased the site on 30.07.2004 through a registered sale deed. Petitioner Nos. 14 and 15 have purchased sites on 30.07.2004 through registered sale deeds. Petitioner Nos. 16 and 17 have purchased sites on 30.08.2004 through registered sale deeds. In respect of all these petitioners, learned Senior counsel Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy has reiterated the contentions urged in the connected W.P.Nos.32950-951/2015 in support of the prayer made. 11. Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the BDA has adopted the contentions urged by Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel in the connected matter and further urges that all these petitioners being subsequent purchasers of sites formed in the land in question, they are not entitled to maintain the writ petition. It is urged by him that petitioner No.1 in this writ petition/Sri Yeshwanth Babu S/o. Hanumanthu, who claims to be the land owner is not the notified katedar inasmuch as the notification disclosed the name of Byranna M. Srinivas. 12. In W.P.Nos. 32934949/2015, petitioners 1 to 3 are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.204/5 measuring 19 guntas and Sy.No.204/6 measuring 14 guntas and 204/7 measuring 16 guntas situated at Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Petitioners 4 to 6 claim to be purchasers of sites formed in the said lands. 12. In W.P.Nos. 32934949/2015, petitioners 1 to 3 are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.204/5 measuring 19 guntas and Sy.No.204/6 measuring 14 guntas and 204/7 measuring 16 guntas situated at Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Petitioners 4 to 6 claim to be purchasers of sites formed in the said lands. Similar contentions are urged by learned Senior counsel in respect of these petitioners in support of the prayer sought. 13. Sri M.N.Ramanjaneya Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the BDA in the above case while reiterating the contentions urged by learned counsel Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao and Sri B.S.Sachin, in addition points out that petitioners have kept quiet all these years knowing fully well that their representations submitted seeking exemption and exclusion of lands from the purview of acquisition were rejected and therefore, they were guilty of delay and latches. He, therefore, urges that writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 14. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record and after considering the arguments addressed by learned counsel for all parties, the first point that requires to be considered is, (i) Whether the BDA has taken over possession of the lands/sites which are the subject matter of these writ petitions and has paid compensation to the land owners pursuant to the award passed? (ii) If the answer to this question is in negative, then, the next question would be, what would be the consequence of such inaction on the part of the BDA on the acquisition proceedings? (iii) It would be also incidentally necessary to deal with the question, whether petitioners, some of whom are the subsequent purchasers of the sites formed in the land are entitled to maintain the writ petitions? 15. The first question is as to whether the BDA has taken over possession of the land and paid compensation to the land owners. As already referred to above, preliminary notification under Section 17(1) was issued on 15.04.2002 followed by final declaration under Section19(1) of the BDA Act dated 31.10.2002. Award was passed on 05.12.2002. Insofar as passing of the award and determination of compensation, as per Section 36 of the BDA Act provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are applicable. It is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice of the award to the land owners immediately after passing of the award vide Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Insofar as passing of the award and determination of compensation, as per Section 36 of the BDA Act provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are applicable. It is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice of the award to the land owners immediately after passing of the award vide Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land owners will have the opportunity to receive compensation and file necessary application seeking reference of their case regarding determination of just compensation. It is the statutory obligation of the BDA to pay compensation to the land losers as their lands are taken over for its benefit. In the absence of any rival claim or dispute regarding the entitlement for receiving the compensation there would be no justification for the BDA to deny payment of compensation to the land losers. It is only when there is doubt regarding the entitlement to receive the compensation or in the event of rival claims the land acquisition officer is enjoined with a duty to refer the matter to the Civil Court and deposit the amount of compensation with the Civil Court as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. 16. It is not the case of the BDA that compensation was not paid to petitioners as there was any doubt or dispute regarding their entitlement or that there were rival claims for payment of compensation. It is not even the case of the BDA that the compensation amount was deposited before the Civil Court due to any such valid or justifiable reason. Indeed, the amount has not been deposited in the Court nor has it been paid to the claimants but has been kept with the BDA unto itself. This action of the BDA does not and cannot tantamount to paying compensation to land losers. The fact that BDA has kept the amount in its own revenue deposit and has not paid the same to the claimants nor has it deposited it before the Civil Court is amply clear from the endorsement dated 12.04.2016 issued by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bangalore. Indeed, this factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel who have appeared for the BDA. 17. Indeed, this factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel who have appeared for the BDA. 17. Regarding taking over possession of the lands in question for formation of layout, considerable argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the BDA to contend that possession of the lands/sites have been taken over. Attention of the Court is drawn to the mahazar and the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Mahazar produced is of the year 2003 and the notification issued under Section 16(2) is dated 20.12.2003. However, along with the rejoinder filed by petitioners in reply to the statement of objections and the documents produced petitioners have produced proceeding dated 24.07.2014 of the Executive Engineer, BDA at AnnexureA3. It is evident from the said proceeding and order which is styled as “Tippani and Order” that in reply to the information sought by the Deputy Commissioner for Land Acquisition regarding the utilization of lands in question comprised in Sy.Nos. 204/5 to 204/7 and 154 and 152/3 totally measuring 2 acres 31 guntas and as to whether any layout had been formed and sites had been distributed, the executive Engineer after conducting survey, submitted a report stating as under: (a) Sy. No.204/5 totally measured 21 guntas. Out of which 19 guntas was acquired by the BDA. In this area, as identified in the map, there were constructed houses and therefore, no layout was formed. (b) In Sy.No.204/6, out of 21 guntas, 14 guntas were acquired. In the acquired land, as shown in the map houses, school and play ground were in existence and hence, in the said survey number, no layout was formed. (c) In Sy.No.204/7 out of 23 guntas, 16 guntas were acquired by the BDA and in the acquired portion, as shown in the map house, school and play ground were in existence and no layout was formed. (d) As regards Sy.No.154, out of total extent of 1 acre 10 guntas acquired by the BDA, as shown in the map 29¾ guntas had been utilized by the BDA for formation of road and remaining 20¼ guntas were vacant and in the said vacant land one Anjaneyaswamy temple was in existence and that no layout was formed in the said vacant area. ] (e) In Sy.No.152/3, out of 1 acre of acquired land, 4 guntas were used for formation of road by the BDA and in the remaining 36 guntas as shown in the map constructed houses were in existence and no layout was formed in the same. 18. The above said document at AnnexureA3 further mentions at the end that the information as aforesaid had been forwarded along with sketch/map for further action. AnnexureA3 proceeding of the BDA is not disputed by the BDA. This is an admitted document. This document, in all material particulars discloses that several houses including a school building and play ground had come up in the lands in question and the BDA had not formed any layout in these lands. In all survey numbers, existence of houses is shown in AnnexureA3. AnnexureA3 specifically makes it clear that BDA had not formed layout in the lands in question. Except noting that 29¾ guntas in Sy.No.154 and 4 guntas in Sy.No.152/3 had been utilized for formation of road, in respect of the rest of the area it is categorically stated that the said area consists of constructed buildings and no layout was formed in that area. Therefore, assertions made by the learned counsel for the BDA that possession of the land was taken and the BDA utilized the same for formation of layout cannot be accepted. In the wake of AnnexureA3 document, the presumption, if any that arises from the notification issued under Section 16(2) gets rebutted. Therefore, it has to be held that possession of the lands has not been taken over by the BDA; lands have not been utilized for formation of layout and that the lands in question comprised constructed buildings. 19. As regards the portion of land measuring 29¾ guntas in Sy.No.154 and 4 guntas in Sy.No.152/3 which have been utilized by the BDA, learned counsel appearing for petitioners has conceded that petitioners will not press for the relief sought in the writ petitions in respect of the said portion utilized for road. 20. Now coming to the consequence of not taking over possession of the land and not paying compensation to the land losers, it is well established by a catena of judgments that the Authority vested with the power has to exercise the said power in a reasonable manner and reasonable exercise of power includes exercising the same within a reasonable period. Now coming to the consequence of not taking over possession of the land and not paying compensation to the land losers, it is well established by a catena of judgments that the Authority vested with the power has to exercise the said power in a reasonable manner and reasonable exercise of power includes exercising the same within a reasonable period. The BDA is not entitled to have the land acquired, pass award and then, ignore the rights of land losers. It is enjoined with a duty to pay compensation to the land losers and take over possession of the land. If the possession of the land is not taken over and the land losers have not been paid compensation, the land does not vest with the BDA. 21. The land owner has got statutory right to receive the compensation and his right has been constitutionally recognized as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He cannot be deprived of his right to get just and fair compensation within a reasonable period. Omission on the part of the beneficiary of the acquisition in paying the compensation would affect the rights of the land loser whose land is compulsorily acquired. It would lead to unjust enrichment. 22. This is not a case where challenge is made to the acquisition of the land by the subsequent purchasers so that petitions could be summarily dismissed as not maintainable. Original land owners are the petitioners. There are some petitioners who have purchased sites formed in the revenue land and have constructed houses prior to 4(1) notification. There are some petitioners who have purchased sites after the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. They are not challenging the acquisition proceedings. They are seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to inordinate delay on the part of the BDA in not taking over the land and paying compensation to the acquired lands. In case where a declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed or that the same have been abandoned, this Court has held in W.P.Nos. 10286291/2014 disposed of on 05.12.2016 that such writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable. In case where a declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed or that the same have been abandoned, this Court has held in W.P.Nos. 10286291/2014 disposed of on 05.12.2016 that such writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable. Observations made by this Court in Paragraph 14 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted herein under: “Indeed, it is necessary to notice here that this is not a simple case where challenge is made to the acquisition by the subsequent purchaser and therefore, it has to be held that writ petition cannot be maintained. The owners of the land have waited for 10 years after the final notification was issued. When no award was passed for a period of 10 years, he has dealt with this property and has sold the same in favour of petitioner No.1. The owners cannot be expected to stay away from the property or keep their hands out of the property for an indefinite period anticipating the BDA to pass the award some day. If BDA has not exercised its power within a reasonable period, a right accrues to the land owner to deal with his property. That is because, acquisition proceedings after such lapse of time stood abandoned. In such a situation, the purchaser who has purchased the property after a decade from the date of the preliminary and final notification, cannot be shut out from seeking a declaration that the acquisition stood lapsed as the same was abandoned by the acquiring authority and the beneficiary. This position in law is explained by the Division Bench in paragraph 15 of the judgment in Nagu Bai’s case referred to supra. Hence, I am of the view that none of the contentions urged by the Counsel for the BDA are tenable in law, to sustain the notifications and the acquisition.” 23. Indeed this judgment and these observations have been approved by the Apex Court in the case of GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. MANAVDHARMA TRUST AND ANOTHER CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6112/2017 disposed of on 04.05.2017. 24. Hence, it cannot be said that some of the petitioners who have purchased sites after 4(1) notification cannot maintain these writ petitions. Indeed this judgment and these observations have been approved by the Apex Court in the case of GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. MANAVDHARMA TRUST AND ANOTHER CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6112/2017 disposed of on 04.05.2017. 24. Hence, it cannot be said that some of the petitioners who have purchased sites after 4(1) notification cannot maintain these writ petitions. Learned counsel for petitioners has rightly placed reliance on the judgment in the case of RAM CHAND & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – (1994)1 SCC 44 and also on the judgment in the case of H.N.SHIVANNA & OTHERS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, BANGALORE & ANOTHER – 2013(4) KCCR 2793 in support of the contention that where a power is conferred on any authority, the said power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. 25. Contention urged by learned counsel for the BDA that as award has been passed, the only remedy for the land owners is to receive the compensation determined in the year 2003 along with interest payable under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be accepted. Petitioners can not be deprived of their valuable property except by due process of law. This constitutional mandate presupposes payment of compensation soon after passing of the award while taking over possession. In the instant case neither possession is taken over nor compensation is paid for the last 13 years. The BDA has consciously excluded these lands while forming the layout as these lands consisted of constructed houses and school buildings. It is for this reason the BDA has not taken over the possession of these lands and it is for the very same reason, they have not paid the compensation. Thus, this is a case of abandonment of acquisition by the BDA. In such circumstances, petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. 26. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that the BDA has abandoned the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the lands in question and therefore the acquisition has stood lapsed as the BDA has not completed the same by taking over possession and by paying compensation. In such circumstances, petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. 26. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that the BDA has abandoned the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the lands in question and therefore the acquisition has stood lapsed as the BDA has not completed the same by taking over possession and by paying compensation. This order, however, will not be applicable to 29¾ guntas utilized for the purpose of road by the BDA in Sy.No.154 and 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.152/3 as petitioners have not pressed the writ petitions with regard to the said portions of the land.