ORDER : 1. Though the matter is listed for “Hearing- Interlocutory Application” with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the mater is heard and disposed of finally. 2. In these writ petitions the petitioners seek to challenge the preliminary notification dated 13.10.1998 passed under Section 4(1) and final notification dated 13.11.1989 under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition and all further act or action of the respondents are illegal, unsustainable and lasped in respect of Sy. No. 19, measuring 0-05 guntas and Sy. No. 22, measuring 2 acres 04 guntas situated at Tippasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. 3. It is an admitted fact that Late Sri. Chinnappa along with several other land owners had filed W.P. Nos. 7287-7300/1993 with the very same prayer challenging the acquisition proceedings. This Court by order dated 03.01.1996 considered the grounds agitated by the petitioners therein inter-alia that the land owners were not given sufficient opportunity to contest their case; there was no enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act; that the final notification was issued after lapse of one year from the date of preliminary notification; that the petitioners belong to backward community and they are illiterate persons and they were not heard in the acquisition proceedings, etc. After considering the rival contentions, this Court held that there was no merit in the contentions of the petitioners. This Court looked into the material placed before the Court and came to a conclusion that the enquiry was conducted and opportunity of hearing was also given to the petitioners. The land owners had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and a detailed enquiry was conducted and thereafter the final notification was issued by the State government. It has been noticed that the submissions and evidence placed by the respondent-BDA before the Court was not countered by the petitioners. It was noticed that the petitioners had suppressed the material facts in the petitions. Finally, it was observed that the petitioners were aware of the acquisition proceedings as far back as 1989 and approached this Court after lapse and delay of 4 years and therefore it was held that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. Consequently, the writ petitions came to be dismissed. 4. The appeals preferred in W.A. Nos. Consequently, the writ petitions came to be dismissed. 4. The appeals preferred in W.A. Nos. 920-925 and 929-931/1996 were dismissed upholding the orders passed by this Court. It was also noticed that before the Division Bench it was contended on behalf of the land owners that the acquisition was not for public purpose and the said contention was not considered by this Court. However, the Division Bench held that no doubt at para-18 of their petitions, the writ petitioners had alleged that the lands had not been acquired for the public purposes, but by challenging the writ petitions they restricted their grounds of attack as enumerated in para-28 to 34, wherein they did no raise the plea of the land having been acquired for the purpose, which was allegedly not for the public purpose. Therefore, the Division Bench concluded that the petitioners having failed to raise the said contentions, cannot be heard to say that the contentions though urged in the writ petitions were considered by this Court. Consequently, the appeal also came to be dismissed on 07.07.1997. Some of the land owners took up the matters before the Apex Court, in SLP (Civil) No. 15337-15338/1997 and the said SLP was also dismissed on 02.09.1999. 5. In this background, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5-Society submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable since they are hit by the principles of res-judicata. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5-Society that the predecessor of the petitioners i.e. the notified land owners having already challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court and this Court having came to a conclusion that the acquisition proceedings are legitimate and the writ petitions having once been dismissed, a second round of litigation cannot be permissible on the very same cause of action. 6. Moreover, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5-Society has taken this Court through the statement of objections field by the society and attention of this Court is drawn to certain subsequent event that has transpired after the SLP of the land owners was dismissed. It is submitted that the layout has been formed, relinquishment deed has been executed by respondent No. 5-Society in favour of BDA relinquishing and handing over the civic community sites free of costs, parks, playground, open space, with water supply and sewerage main, street light etc. It is submitted that the layout has been formed, relinquishment deed has been executed by respondent No. 5-Society in favour of BDA relinquishing and handing over the civic community sites free of costs, parks, playground, open space, with water supply and sewerage main, street light etc. to the BDA for being handed over to the concerned local bodies. Further, material has been placed before this Court to show that the entire layout has been developed and the allottees of the sites have put-up constructions and are peacefully residing in the layout. 7. Another aspect brought to the notice of this Court is that, these writ petitioners made a request by writing a letter dated 27.01.2009 to respondent No. 5-Society seeking allotment of a site measuring 60 x 40 feet in lieu of the acquisition of the site or in the alternative, pay the sital value of a site measurement 60 x 40 feet. At Annexure-R.13 along with the statement of objections, respondent No. 5-Society has produced a copy of the affidavit given by the petitioners herein acknowledging in lieu of a free site, the equivalent sital value of Rs. 10,80,000/- has been received by the petitioners on behalf of all the other family members. As per the said affidavit, each of the writ petitioners herein have received a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- each by way of individual cheques and have declared that they have given up all rights with respect to the land in question. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5-Society submits that these writ petitions have been filed in the year 2017 long after the writ petitioners received the said amount and have admittedly given up all the rights having admitted that they have received compensation towards the land and these aspects have deliberately been withheld in the memorandum of writ petition. Therefore, learned counsel submits that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, on the ground that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the question of res-judicata would submit that these writ petitions are not hit by the principles of res-judicata since a new ground has been raised in these writ petitions which was never raised in the earlier writ petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the question of res-judicata would submit that these writ petitions are not hit by the principles of res-judicata since a new ground has been raised in these writ petitions which was never raised in the earlier writ petitions. It is submitted that as provided in Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act it was incumbent upon the respondents to formulate a scheme which was required to be sponsored by the State Government and since there was no scheme, the acquisition proceedings are required to be quashed. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments: (i) R. Rajshekar and Others vs. Trinity House Building Co-Operative Society and Others, Civil Appeal No. 9091-9119/2016, decided on 15.09.2016. (ii) HMT House Building Co-Operative Society vs. Syed Khader, ILR 1995 Kar. 1962. (iii) Seetharam and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2017 Kar. 2063. (iv) M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Gruha Nirmana Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha vs. State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others, ILR 2016 Kar. 2338. (v) B. Anjanappa and Others vs. Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society Limited and Others, (2012) 10 SCC 184. (vi) Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha vs. Smt. Narayanamma (Since Deceased) by LRs. and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 228 . 9. By placing reliance on these judgments, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the law is well settled that unless there is a scheme formulated and scheme is approved by the State Government, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be declared legal and consequently, the acquisition proceedings will have to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to urge the very same ground that since the respondent No. 5-Society had engaged the services of middle man and contractors, and since power of attorney was said to have been given by the original landlords and in all the proceedings it was the attorney that representing the owners and they never really participated in the proceedings and in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of HMT House Building Co-Operative Society, as noted above, the acquisition proceedings are required to be quashed. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsels for the respondents, and perused the petition papers. 12. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsels for the respondents, and perused the petition papers. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5-Society the contentions regarding engagement of middlemen, power of attorney holder representing the land owners in the land acquisition proceedings, and such other contentions were raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with respect to the very same society having given a categorical finding that the special feature of the acquisition with respect to this society is that the society had not entered into any agreement, with any middleman or contractor to get the land acquired, therefore, the very same contentions cannot be raised once again before this court. The said issues with respect to respondent No. 5-Society was decided by the Apex Court in the case of Bank Officers and Officials House Building Cooperative Society Limited vs. Sanjeevappa and Others, which has been reported in (1995) 3 SCC 143 . 13. It is noticeable that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has also noticed that it has not been contended by the landlords that there was no prior approval of the appropriate government to the scheme in question. Therefore the question of there not being any scheme cannot be re-agitated by the writ petitioners. On the question of res-judicata, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 443 held that a person who is deprived of his land can challenge the acquisition proceedings at various stage. He can question the notification under Section 4(1) on the ground of violation of mandate contained therein like publication of the notification in the Official Gazette and/or (2) newspapers, failure of the Collector to cause public notice of the substance of the notification etc. He can challenge the declaration issued under Section 6(1) on the ground of noncompliance of Sections 5-A(1) and/or (2) or violation of the first proviso (ii) to section 6(1). In a given case, the land owner can also challenge the notification issued under Section 9 and the award passed under Section 11 on the ground that he had not been heard or that the acquisition proceeding are nullity. In a given case, the land owner can also challenge the notification issued under Section 9 and the award passed under Section 11 on the ground that he had not been heard or that the acquisition proceeding are nullity. He can also challenge the award if it is not made within the period prescribed under Section 11-A. The vesting of land in the government can be challenged on the ground that the possession had not been taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure. But, in the present case, it is found that late Sri. Chinnappa the father of the petitioners No. 1 and 4 and father-in-law of petitioners No. 2 and 3 had an opportunity to raise such a ground in the earlier writ petitions. Sri Chinnappa has failed to raise such a ground. But, it is also important to notice that several of the land owners had jointly filed the writ petitions and it was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the fifth respondent-Society, in the decision reported in (1995) 3 SCC 143 that it was not contented by the landlords that there was no prior approval of the scheme. Implicitly, such a question was raised and answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise such a ground after a lapse of 30 years from the date of the final notification. Order II Rule 2 of CPC provides that where a person omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. It is a well settled law that if a party deliberately omits to raise all the available grounds, he will not be permitted to raise such ground subsequently by filing or agitating another petition. 14. As regards the other contentions raised by the petitioners, they are clearly estopped by the principles of res-judicata since these grounds were earlier raised and considered by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, on all these grounds the petition should necessarily fail. 15. 14. As regards the other contentions raised by the petitioners, they are clearly estopped by the principles of res-judicata since these grounds were earlier raised and considered by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, on all these grounds the petition should necessarily fail. 15. This Court cannot but notice that the petitioners are misusing the judicial process of this Court by raising a challenge to the acquisition proceedings after having taken the compensation amount and in addition they have also approached the respondent No. 5-Society seeking allotment of a free site in lieu of the concerned award and in that regard it has been evidenced by an affidavit given by the petitioners herein, way back in the year 2009 that each of them have received a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- totally Rs. 10,80,000/- in lieu of an additional site which was sought by the petitioners. All these aspects have not been stated in the writ petitions. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. 16. In the light of the above, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitions are required to be dismissed with exemplary costs and therefore proceedings to pass the following: ORDER: (1) The writ petitions are dismissed. (2) The four petitioners are liable to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- each to respondent No. 5 Society and the same shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today and an acknowledgement for having paid the costs shall be placed on record. 17. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions as above, I.A. No. 1/2019 does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed.