ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this court assailing the Notifications dated 8.10.1986 and 3.8.2013 which are impugned at Annexures B and R respectively. 2. The petitioner is the owner of lands bearing (1) Survey No. 52/1 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas and (2) Survey No. 53/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas situated at Peenya village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The said lands were initially notified for acquisition for the benefit of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In that regard, the Notification dated 8.10.1986 was issued, whereunder the said land was included among other lands which were acquired for the formation of the Air Force Station at Jalahalli. Pursuant to such Notification, the award has been passed on 16.3.1987 and the compensation has been received by the petitioners. 3. The respondents having acquired the said property were in possession of the same. At this point in time, the respondent No. 3 had issued a Notification u/s. 17(1) and (3) of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, dated 2.8.2013. The very item of the property referred to herein was included in the said Notification at S. No. 129. It is at that point, the petitioner has approached this court assailing the Notification under which the property was acquired for the benefit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and also the one issued by the respondent No. 3. 4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that though the property was acquired under Notification dated 8.10.1986 for the benefit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the mere fact that the respondent No. 3 has presently notified the very same property for acquisition would indicate that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not utilized the said property and is presently allowing the respondent No. 3 to acquire the very same property thereby denying the same to the petitioners. In that light, it is contended that when the property was not utilized by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, denying such right over the property to the petitioner and allowing respondent No. 3 in notifying the same for other purpose, would not be justified and therefore, it is contended that the notifications are liable to be quashed. 5. The respondent No. 3 has filed objection statement. Essentially, the acquisition proceedings presently initiated by the respondent No. 3 is a matter between the respondent Nos. 5. The respondent No. 3 has filed objection statement. Essentially, the acquisition proceedings presently initiated by the respondent No. 3 is a matter between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the one hand and the respondent No. 3 on the other hand. Therefore, in so far as the subsequent Notification dated 3.8.2013 is concerned, the challenge as made by the petitioner would not arise. Firstly, what is necessary to be taken note of is the very fact that at S. No. 129, the name of Kathedars/Anubhavdars is shown as “Indian Air Force, Chief Engineering Office” which would disclose that the acquisition that was made for the benefit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had not only concluded by way of the award being passed and the compensation being paid to the petitioner, but the transfer of the ownership rights had also been made by change of revenue entries. Hence when the respondent No. 3 had taken note of the property documents, the name of the respondent No. 1 was indicated therein. In that circumstance, when the acquisition has been made for the benefit of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as far back as in the year 1986, challenge to the said Notification at this point in time would not arise. 6. Though a vehement contention has been urged that the property not being utilized and having been kept vacant, should be returned to the petitioner, such contention also cannot be accepted in the present circumstance, where the property owned by the petitioner was one among the several items of the property that had been acquired under Notification dated 8.10.1986 for the purpose of Air Force Station, Jalahalli and while the station of the Air Force including residence of officers has been established, merely having certain parts of vacant land by itself cannot be a circumstance to accept that the property has not been utilized and the purpose for which the land was acquired has not been implemented. Therefore, all these aspects would indicate that the challenge raised to the impugned Notifications is unsustainable. 7. The petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly disposed of.