JUDGMENT : P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J. 1. These appeals are preferred by the State challenging order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No. 1038-1041/2017 holding acquisition proceedings as having lapsed. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Hon’ble Single Judge. 3. We have heard Shri S.S. Mahendra, learned AGA for the State, Shri M. Rama Mohan, learned advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Narendra Gowda, learned advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions contending inter-alia: (i) that petitioners' ancestors had purchased property bearing No. 12/6A and 12/6B measuring 3 acres 24 guntas in Byrasandra Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. (ii) that State Government issued a Preliminary Notification on 20.8.1941 and sought to acquire the land in question by exercising Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short) which was a part of 131 acres 2 guntas of land for construction of a new Central Jail. (iii) that acquisition proceedings were not completed nor possession of the land taken. Accordingly, they prayed for a writ of mandamus to declare the acquisition as having lapsed. 5. The Hon’ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and declared the acquisition as lapsed. Hence, these writ appeals. 6. Shri. Mahendra, learned AGA for the State made following submissions: (i) that these petitions have been filed after lapse of 76 years by persons claiming to be descendents of original owner. The property in question was acquired by the State for construction of Central Jail. However, the said land has been given to the Fire Force Department as a different location was identified for construction of Central Jail. He argued that these instant writ petitions are not maintainable in view of an inter-party judgment in RFA No. 22/1995, A. Manjunatha v. The Commissioner, BDA and Others, decided on 26.7.1995. The said appeal was filed challenging dismissal of suit in O.S. No. 3567/1991 filed by 4th petitioner’s son. It was contended on behalf of the appellant in RFA No. 22/1995 that he had continued to be in possession till the date of filing the suit. The said appeal was filed challenging dismissal of suit in O.S. No. 3567/1991 filed by 4th petitioner’s son. It was contended on behalf of the appellant in RFA No. 22/1995 that he had continued to be in possession till the date of filing the suit. This Court while dismissing the appeal has recorded that pursuant to issuance of Notification, relevant revenue records were changed and the authorities have acted in pursuance of the Notification. The said appeal has attained finality. (ii) that petitioners No. 1 to 3 had also filed O.S. No. 5946/1996 against the Director of Fire Services for injunction, which has been dismissed on 15.3.2002. (iii) that one Thimmakka and others had also filed suit in O.S. No. 8881/1998 against the Director of Fire Force Services for injunction. The Trial Court having rejected an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, the plaintiffs therein filed MFA No. 2298/1999 and this Court dismissed the said appeal on 10.8.1999. 7. He also adverted to revenue records, which are also subject matter of litigation before this Court. 8. In substance, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioners having lost their claim simultaneously with the Judgment of this Court in RFA No. 22/1995, have chosen to file these writ petitions, which are hopelessly barred by time. 9. Shri Rama Mohan, learned advocate for the writ petitioners argued in support of the impugned order. In substance, he urged that the State have failed to demonstrate before the Hon’ble Single Judge that the acquisition proceedings were completed in accordance with law and possession was taken by them. Therefore, the Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly held the acquisition as lapsed. 10. Shri Narendra Gowda, learned advocate for the Bengaluru Development Authority submitted that the Authority was in no way connected with the land in question. 11. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the material papers on record. 12. Undisputed facts of the case are, land in question was sought to be acquired by issuing Notification in the year 1941. As on the date of filing writ petitions, 76 years had elapsed. Petitioners have not correctly described themselves with regard to their relation with the original owner. Fourth petitioner’s son filed a suit against the Director of Fire Force, which has been dismissed by the Civil Court. As on the date of filing writ petitions, 76 years had elapsed. Petitioners have not correctly described themselves with regard to their relation with the original owner. Fourth petitioner’s son filed a suit against the Director of Fire Force, which has been dismissed by the Civil Court. In RFA No. 22/1995 filed challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 3567/1991, this Court has recorded thus: “......There is a presumption of legality in respect of acts performed by a public authority and the learned Govt. Advocate was directed to produce the relevant notification in relation to the acquisition. That notification has been produced and it is dated 20-8-1941. It is very clear that this land was notified and that the acquisition has thereafter assumed a stage of finality. It is not possible or permissible at this point of time to go behind the consequences of that acquisition. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was justified in having dismissed the suit.” 13. Suit in O.S. No. 5946/1996 filed by petitioners No. 1 to 3 against the Director of Fire Services has been dismissed. Another suit for injunction in O.S. No. 8881/1998 and the appeal filed thereon have also been dismissed. 14. The conspectus of facts recorded hereinabove, leads to an irresistible inference that, the petitioners made their first unsuccessful attempt by filing a suit after a lapse of ‘half century’ precisely in the year 1991. The inter-party judgment in RFA No. 22/1995 delivered on 26.07.1995 by this Court has attained finality and binds the parties. Interestingly, the said suit was filed by 4th petitioner’s son. Undeterred by the dismissal of appeal by this Court, petitioner nos. 1 to 3 attempted another misadventure by filing another suit in O.S. No. 5946/1996. Facts narrated hereinabove are extracted from the pleadings in the writ petitions which is supported by a verifying affidavit signed by 4th petitioner. 15. It is apposite to note that in City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168 while considering challenge to acquisition after a lapse of 35 years, the Supreme Court of India has held thus: “26. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as of right. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing a writ. The principle is that the courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum.” 16. In the instant case, petitioners woke up for the first time after half a century and filed a suit in the year 1991 in respect of the land which has been acquired in the year 1941. Further, the parties are bound by the decision in R.F.A. No. 22/1995 decided on 26.07.1995. 17. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have been indulging in a chance-cum-luxury litigation. Therefore, these appeals eminently merit consideration. 18. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ Appeals are allowed. (ii) Order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No. 1038- 1041/2017, is set-aside. 19. In view of allowing the appeals, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. No costs.