ORDER : 1. These writ petitions were clubbed with writ appealsNo.1616-19 of 2014 decided on July 17, 2017, as the subject-matter in these cases are similar to the one in the said writ-appeals. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, these petitions are heard for final disposal. 3. Heard Mr. Ananth Mandagi, learned senior advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No.32066 of 2014 and Writ Petitions No.33584-586 of 2014, Mr. B.M. Shyam Prasad, learned senior advocate for the petitioners in Writ PetitionsNo.31933-35 of 2014, Mr. Vijay Shankar, learned senior advocate for the Bangalore Development Authority, Mr. Vivek Holla, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and the respective learned advocates in support of applications for impleadment. 4. Writ Petitions No.32066 and 33584-86 of 2014 are filed inter alia with a prayer to quash the notification dated June 18, 2014 (Annexure-N). The petitioners in these writ-petitions shall be referred to as land owners. 5. Writ Petitions No.31933-935 of 2014 are filed by the allottees of sites, challenging the judgment and order dated February 19, 2014, in Writ Petitions No.5343-45 and 5575 of 2014. The petitioners in these writ petitions shall be referred to as allottees. 6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, certain lands, including the lands belonging to the land owners in the se proceedings were acquired for formation of the Arkavathi Layout. 7. This Court in the case of the Commissioner, BDA and others v. State of Karnataka, by its Secretary reported in ILR 2006 KAR 318, upheld the acquisition of the lands for formation of Arkavathi Layout subject to certain conditions. It was, inter alia, provided that the land owners, who were-seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands, to make appropriate application seeking such exclusion and exemption, by producing documents substantiating their contentions. Bangalore Development Authority [‘BDA’ for short] were directed to consider such request, keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification. 8. The land owners in these proceedings, made such a representation. The BDA, initially, rejected the re-presentation. The land owners have made yet another representation pointing out that such rejection order was passed without affording an opportunity to the land owner sand without holding a spot inspection. 9. 8. The land owners in these proceedings, made such a representation. The BDA, initially, rejected the re-presentation. The land owners have made yet another representation pointing out that such rejection order was passed without affording an opportunity to the land owner sand without holding a spot inspection. 9. There has been a second order by the Special Land Acquisition Officer recommending to drop the lands in question from acquisition proceedings. 10. The land owners herein approached this Court seeking a direction to consider their request to exclude their lands from acquisition. This Court, by order dated February19, 2014, in Writ Petitions No.5343-5345 and 5575 of 2014, directed the BDA and the Government to expedite the consideration of withdrawal of the lands in question from acquisition. 11. Initially, when the acquisitions were made, the land owners were permitted to obtain sites from the BDA in lieu of the lands acquired. The land owners herein opted to obtain sites in lieu of compensation. Accordingly, sites were allotted to them by the BDA. 12. In the meanwhile, subsequent to there commendation by the Land Acquisition Officer to drop the lands from acquisition, the sites allotted to the land owners in these proceedings were cancelled by execution of cancellation deeds dated March 6, 2014. 13. Thereafter, the State Government, have issued a notification dated June 18, 2014, under Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the BDA Act, 1976, declaring that the lands mentioned therein, which included the lands belonging to the land owners in these proceedings, were needed for public purpose. 14. The resultant position which emerged is, the landowners in these proceedings stood deprived, of both their own lands as well as the compensation in the form of sites allotted to them by the BDA. 15. Therefore, in our view, as the Special Land Acquisition Officer came to the conclusion that the lands in question were to be excluded from the acquisition, the respondents must exclude the lands in question from acquisition, keeping in mind that the land owners would lose their lands and, also, not get title to those sites allotted in lieu of compensation. Therefore, in our view, the impugned notification (Annexure-N) is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 16. Therefore, in our view, the impugned notification (Annexure-N) is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 16. In the result, we allow the writ petitions No.32066 of2014 and 33584-33586 of 2014 and quash the notification dated June 18, 2014, being Annexure-N to the writ petitions, insofar as the petition schedule lands are concerned. 17. We dispose of the writ petitions No.31933-935 of2014 with a direction to the BDA to allot alternative sites to the petitioners-allottees, preferably, in the same area. 18. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, all the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they are, therefore, disposed of accordingly. 19. We make no order as to costs.