ORDER : 1. None present for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for Respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Mr. Ananthswamy S/o Late Patel Chikkahanumaiah in this Court on 04.04.2016 with the following prayers. “Wherefore, the Petitioner prays for: (i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the preliminary notifications bearing No. CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 19.12.1998, 29.01.2003 issued under section 28(1) of the KIAD Act 1966, produced and marked as ANNEXURE-A & B respectively in so far as the Petitioners lands are concerned. (ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari there by quashing the declaration notifications issued under section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966 bearing No. CI 196 SPQ 98 dated 08.04.2003, 05.07.2003 produced and marked as ANNEXURE – C & D respectively in so far as the petitioner’s lands are concerned. (iii) Declare that the Proceedings initiated under the KIAD Act 1966 in so far as the Petitioner’s lands are concerned are lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013. (iv) Issue any appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.” INTERIM PRAYER That for the reasons assigned at Paragraph 24 it is most respectfully prayed that Pending disposal of this writ petition this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the 1st to 3rd and 4th respondents, KIADB and NICE from dispossessing the Petitioner from the schedule mentioned properties in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE Sl. no. VILLAGE Sy. No EXTENT 1 Hoskerehalli 7 ½ 7 A 6G 2 Pantharpalya 30 1A 23G 3 Pantharpalya 26 1A 08G 4 Pantharpalya 27 1A 02G 5 Pantharpalya 28 20 guntas 6 Pantharpalya 29 33 guntas 7 Pantharpalya 31 08 guntas 8 Pantharpalya 32 26 guntas 9 Pantharpalya 33 2A 01G 10 Pantharpalya 34 1A 31G 11 Pantharpalya 35 1A 08G 12 Pantharpalya 36 1A 10G 13 Pantharpalya 45 2A 16G 3. Upon issuance of notices, Respondent No.4M/s. Nandi Infrastructure and Corridor Enterprise (NICE) has filed its detailed Statement of Objections in this Court on 22.06.2016 and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 NICE Mr. Upon issuance of notices, Respondent No.4M/s. Nandi Infrastructure and Corridor Enterprise (NICE) has filed its detailed Statement of Objections in this Court on 22.06.2016 and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 NICE Mr. Nitin Prasad, has submitted before the Court that the petitioner had already challenged the very same land acquisition undertaken by the Respondent-State for the development of Bangalore – Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) and the matter stood concluded in favour of the Respondents at the hands of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683 (State of Karnataka and Another vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others) and the Civil Appeal No.2141/2006 in that batch of cases decided on 20.04.2006 pertains to the very same petitioner/appellant Mr.Ananthswamy. Para 79 of the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is quoted below for ready reference: “79. The learned Single Judge erred in assuming that the lands acquired from places away from the main alignment of the road were not a part of the Project and that is the reason he was persuaded to hold that only 60% of the land acquisition was justified because it pertained to the land acquired for the main alignment of highway. This, in the view of the Division Bench, and in our view, was entirely erroneous. The Division Bench was right in taking the view that the Project was an integrated project intended for public purpose and, irrespective of where the land was situated, so long as it arose from the terms of the FWA, there was no question of characterizing it as unconnected with a public purpose. We are, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the High Court on this issue.” He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same land acquisition again and the present writ petitions filed by the petitioner are in abuse of process of law. 4. It appears from the averments made in the writ petitions that the petitioner has sought to challenge the land acquisition again just to add a prayer that the land acquisition in question should be deemed to have been lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act, 2013. However, the conditions for applying that provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 are not simply available in the present cases. However, the conditions for applying that provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 are not simply available in the present cases. The petitioner has also suppressed the aforesaid facts of the case in the previous round of litigation up to Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, I.A.Nos.1/2016 and 2/2016 stands disposed of. 6. A copy of this order may be sent to the petitioner immediately.