ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for the benefit of Bengaluru Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) vide Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 issued under Section 17 of the Bengaluru Development Act, 1976 (for short ‘BDA Act’) and Final Notification dated 28.07.1990 issued under Section 19 of the BDA Act have stood lapsed, as the BDA has not substantially implemented the scheme despite lapse of five years as contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act. A declaration is also sought that in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the New Act 2013’) the acquisition has stood lapsed, as physical possession of the land has not been taken over and compensation has not been paid. 2. Facts involved in these cases briefly stated, are as under: Petitioner - T.R. Sreenivasa Reddy was owner of land bearing Sy. No. 50/2 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District. This land along with several other lands were notified for acquisition for formation of BTM 6th Stage Layout. Preliminary Notification was issued on 08.09.1987, which was followed by Final Notification dated 28.07.1990. 3. It is mainly urged that, in similar writ petition filed before this court in W.P. Nos. 3342/2004 disposed of on 04.09.2006, it had been contended that BDA had not substantially implemented the scheme and therefore, in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, the scheme had lapsed. The said contention found favour by this Court. 4. In para-8 of this writ petition, petitioner has contended that, initially 524 Acres 9 Guntas of land was proposed for acquisition in Hulimavu Village vide Preliminary Notification, however in the Final Notification, the land to an extent of 135 acres 12 guntas was deleted and 388 acres 9 Guntas of land was notified. It is further contended that, several lands were subsequently de-notified by issuing notifications under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and that only possession of land to an extent of 117 acres 1 gunta was taken and the same was handed over to Engineering Section for formation of lay out in 31 acres 1 gunta of land. It is further contended that, several lands were subsequently de-notified by issuing notifications under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and that only possession of land to an extent of 117 acres 1 gunta was taken and the same was handed over to Engineering Section for formation of lay out in 31 acres 1 gunta of land. They have contended that the land to an extent of 85 acres 99 guntas was built-up over a period of time, therefore, BDA had not formed any lay out. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. V.B. Shivakumar by placing strong reliance on the judgment of this court dated 4.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 35517-35521/2009, Dr. A. Parthasarathy and Others vs. State of Karnataka contends that, in similar circumstances, where BDA had failed to substantially implement the scheme by forming lay out in the acquired land, this court declared that scheme stood lapsed as per Section 27 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Per contra, Sri. Karunakaran, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-BDA, taking me through the statement of objections, strongly contends that petitioner has suppressed several material facts before this Court, in as much as they have received compensation determined as per the award passed and have subsequently approached this court seeking re-determination of compensation on par with the other land owners, who had secured enhanced compensation from the Civil Court. He has also pointed-out that petitioners in W.P. No. 14812-14816/2013 had approached this court seeking allotment of incentive sites. Therefore, he urges that the petitioners having suppressed all these material facts from this court were not entitled for any relief as sought by them. 7. It is his submission that, possession of the land had been taken over and sites had been formed and some of them were allotted by way of allotment, and some of them had been disposed of by way of public auction. He also points-out that, one such allottee is the impleading applicant in one of the connected petitions WP Nos. 1243-1246/2016 dated 28.08.2017. He further submits that the impleaded respondent Smt. Sridevi T. is the purchaser from the allottee of one of the sites, who purchased the site in public auction conducted by the BDA. It is also urged that, as per the direction of this Court in W.P. No. 3342/2004, Respondent-BDA initiated proceedings and re-determined the award. 8. 1243-1246/2016 dated 28.08.2017. He further submits that the impleaded respondent Smt. Sridevi T. is the purchaser from the allottee of one of the sites, who purchased the site in public auction conducted by the BDA. It is also urged that, as per the direction of this Court in W.P. No. 3342/2004, Respondent-BDA initiated proceedings and re-determined the award. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record, it emerges that, after Final Notification was issued on 28.07.1990, award came to be passed on 06.11.1990 determining compensation of Rs. 1,25,286. Possession of the land was taken over and the same was handed over to the Engineering Department of the BDA on 12.11.1990 for taking further necessary steps for formation of the layout as per the approved plan of the Government. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent-BDA submits that, some of the petitioners had approached this court by filing Writ Petition No. 3342/2004, Y.R. Srinivasa Reddy and Others vs. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer disposed of on 04.09.2006, seeking a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA to re-determine the compensation by considering the application filed by them under Section 28(A) of the Act on 21.03.2002. This court as per the order dated 04.09.2006 has issued a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the application in accordance with law. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the BDA that, pursuant to the direction issued by this court, compensation has been re-determined. He also submits that in W.P. Nos. 4965-4969/2010 disposed of on 20.09.2011, this court has issued a direction to the BDA to consider the request made for grant of incentive site in favour of petitioners. 10. In the light of the above developments, it emerges that petitioners have accepted the compensation and have also acknowledged the delivery of possession of land. The land has been utilized for formation of layout in as much as sites formed in the layout have been auctioned. This being the position, petitioner cannot be heard to say at this distance of time that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question have stood lapsed in view of non-implementation of the scheme. Such contention cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioners who have approached this court without disclosing material facts. This being the position, petitioner cannot be heard to say at this distance of time that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question have stood lapsed in view of non-implementation of the scheme. Such contention cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioners who have approached this court without disclosing material facts. They have not stated regarding receipt of compensation, by them. Their assertion that the possession has not been delivered, is contrary to the documents executed by them in the form of Affidavit. In addition to that, fact that layout had been formed in the land in question, is also evident from the factum of purchase of the site formed in the said survey number. Smt. Sridevi T. had secured building plan for construction of the building on her property. 11. Learned counsel for the other respondents are also right and justified in contending that, petitioners had failed to disclose before this court about filing of earlier writ petition seeking a direction for re-determination of the compensation under Section 28(A) of the Act and seeking a direction for allotment of incentive site. Indeed in W.P. No. 14812-14816/2013 filed by some of the petitioners including the petitioner herein disposed of on 30.01.2015, it has been specifically recorded that Respondent-BDA had taken possession of the land on 01.12.1990 and 03.12.1990. This being the position, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Hence, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 12. Sri. Shivakumar, Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.11.2011 in W.P. Nos. 35517-35521/2009. The facts involved in those cases and the propositions of law laid down therein, and the facts of the present case are not similar and common. As is evident from Para-29 of the said judgment, there were no documents produced to show that the petitioners therein had been served with award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. In the facts of the said cases, award had been passed after a lapse of nearly 4 years from the date of issuance of the Final Notification and for a period of 23 years, compensation amount was not deposited. The same was deposited only on 27.08.2009. Moreover petitioners were registered khatedars in respect of the schedule property and they had paid betterment charges in respect thereof to the BBMP. The BBMP had also sanctioned the building plan. The same was deposited only on 27.08.2009. Moreover petitioners were registered khatedars in respect of the schedule property and they had paid betterment charges in respect thereof to the BBMP. The BBMP had also sanctioned the building plan. But, the facts involved in the present case are totally different. Hence, the judgment rendered in the above cases relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. Therefore, this writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.