JUDGMENT : RAVI MALIMATH, J. 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 56164 of 2014 in allowing the writ petition and holding that acquisition proceedings have been abandoned, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein-Bangalore Development Authority have preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the writ petitioners is that they are the owners of the lands in question. Though the preliminary notification is of the year 1978 and final notification is of the year 1987, thereafter no further proceedings have taken place. Therefore, the scheme of acquisition has lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and also under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. The learned Single Judge was of the view, that since the layout has not been developed, Section 27 of the BDA Act, comes into play. However, the learned Single Judge exercised caution to the Bangalore Development Authority that since the petitioners’ claim to title was under a cloud and the allowing of the instant writ petition will not confer absolute right, title and interest to the writ petitioners by virtue of abandonment of acquisition proceedings and further held that the title of the petitioners would have to be established by them, elsewhere. 4. The learned Single Judge has cautioned BDA with regard to the title of the writ petitioners. There is also a mention that the title of the petitioners ought to be established elsewhere. 5. The same is disputed by the respondents on the ground that the property has been willed to them. That there was some error in mentioning the name as Narayanamma instead of Lalithamma. 6. The very submission of the respondents’ counsel would further the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge with regard to title. Whether the property has been Willed or gifted, the title to the property in question will have to be established by the petitioners before the appropriate Civil Court. 7. Therefore, we are of the view, that when the learned Single Judge was of the view that the title is in dispute, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. This we find is an error committed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. Therefore, we are of the view, that when the learned Single Judge was of the view that the title is in dispute, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. This we find is an error committed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is always reserved to the respondents herein to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.