ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Sirsi, wherein the interlocutory application I.A.No.5 preferred by the petitioner, who is the claimant before the Reference Court, came to be rejected by the Reference Court by order dated 11.09.2018. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and in the light of the proviso to sub section 2 to Section 24 of the Act, the acquisition initiated by the respondent state under the 4(1) notification dated 27.09.2010 and completed under the final notification dated 08.06.2012 stands lapsed as the respondent has not complied with the stipulation and mandate of sub-section 2 of section 24 of the Act. 4. Hence, they preferred the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC praying leave of the Court to amend the petition in order to contend that the acquisitions have lapsed. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the ruling rendered by this Court and reported in ILR 2016 KAR 207, in the case of Smt. Hanumawwa and others vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others and another ruling reported in ILR 2015 KAR 3267, in the case of The Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board and Another v. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department and another, and ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (10) SCC 270 , in the case of Soorajmull Nagarmull v. State of Bihar and others. 5. On a perusal of the facts involved herein, it is apparent that none of the rulings are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 6. The learned HCGP has filed a memo enclosing a statement in a tabular form, wherein the date of 4(1) notification, the date of taking of possession and the date of the award have been detailed. 6. The learned HCGP has filed a memo enclosing a statement in a tabular form, wherein the date of 4(1) notification, the date of taking of possession and the date of the award have been detailed. It is seen that the possession of the lands has been taken on 13.01.2012 and the award has been passed on 23.05.2012, i.e., much earlier to the Act of 2013 coming into force. 7. The provisions of Section 24 of the Act do not enable the undoing of a completed act and the same relates only to inchoate proceedings or proceedings which are partially completed. In the instant case, the possession having been taken and the award having been passed and the amount having been deposited before the Reference Court, the invocation of the provisions of the Act of 2013 is not only unsustainable but a highly mischievous attempt coupled with a mala-fide intent. 8. In fact, the petitioners have filed their claim petitions seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded and the same have been numbered as LAC No.1/2012, LAC No.2/2012, LAC No.3/2012, LAC No.4/2012, LAC No.5/2012, LAC No.6/2012 & LAC No.7/2012 and on a further perusal of the claim petitions, there is not even a whisper denying the fact of deposit of the award amount or about the factum of the claimants having been disposed from the lands. In that view of the matter, the instant assertions virtually amount to making a false statement before this Court. 9. Be that as it may. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are land losers, this Court has adopted a lenient view towards the transgressions committed by the petitioners by way of swearing to a false statement and has refrained from imposing exemplary costs. In that view of the matter and in the light of the assertions on behalf of the respondents that the possession has been taken on 13.01.2012 and award has been passed on 23.05.2012 in pursuance of the notifications dated 27.09.2010 and 08.06.2012, not being controverted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not only highly misleading but a motivated attempt which has been rightly negated by the Reference Court. 10. The petitioners are placing reliance on the very same rulings as relied before the Reference Court. 10. The petitioners are placing reliance on the very same rulings as relied before the Reference Court. This Court having examined the same is of the considered opinion that the facts involved in the rulings reported and the facts involved in the instant case are wholly different and the said rulings are inapplicable to the facts involved in the instant claim petitions. The reference Court has rendered cogent reasons in support of its conclusion and for the rejection of the application. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions stand rejected. 11. The Reference Court is directed to conduct an enquiry as to whether the claimants/petitioners have made any false statements to the Reference Court and if the Reference Court is of the prima-facie opinion that there is material to prima-facie demonstrates so, then the Reference Court shall invoke the provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and take it to its logical end.