JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - In these two Writ Appeals, the common question that arise for consideration is whether the Scheme framed by the Appellants for formation of Banashankari V Stage layout has lapsed in view of its non-implementation within five years as mandated under section 27 of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Since common question of law is involved, these two appeals are taken up for disposal together. IN WRIT APPEAL No.595 OF 2016 2. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 have filed this Writ Appeal assailing the Order dated 02.02.2016, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court had declared that the Banashankari V Stage Scheme formulated by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and approved by the respondent No.1 had lapsed in view of its nonimplementation within 5 years as mandated under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act') and also declared that the acquisition had lapsed in view of non taking over of possession of the land and excluding substantial portion of the land from acquisition. 3. The petitioner claimed that Survey Nos.83 and 84 of Uttarahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 01 Acre 04 guntas and 06 Acres 24 guntas respectively belong to his family. Pursuant to a deed of partition dated 24.03.2010 between the petitioner, his brother and mother, the aforesaid property fell to the share of the petitioner. It is stated that a Scheme was prepared by the respondent No.2 for the formation of Banashankari V Stage Layout, which was spread over 1351.39 Acres in various villages, namely, Uttarahalli, Marasandra, Vaddarapalya, Doddakallasandra, Yelachenahalli, Halagevaderahalli, Channasandra, Bikasipura, Vasanthapura and Konanakunte, following a preliminary notification dated 13.04.1981. It is stated that an extent of 500 Acres 06 guntas in Uttarahalli village including the land of the petitioner was the subject matter of the acquisition. It is stated that the petitioner's mother challenged the acquisition before this Court in Writ Petition No.993 of 2000, which was dismissed. Consequently, the final notification issued by the respondent No.1 remained undisturbed and the challenge to the acquisition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was also negatived. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that the lands in question are developed into a garden land, where there are fruit yielding mango trees. Consequently, the final notification issued by the respondent No.1 remained undisturbed and the challenge to the acquisition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was also negatived. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that the lands in question are developed into a garden land, where there are fruit yielding mango trees. In order to prove the existence of these trees, the petitioner has furnished the copies of the RTC extracts. However, a perusal of these RTC extracts do not disclose the existence of any trees as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that large extents of land were denotified from acquisition in the three villages, namely, Uttarahalli, Marasandra and Channasandra and in proof of the same, the petitioner has produced Annexures 'F', 'G', 'H', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M', 'N', 'O', 'P', 'Q', 'R', 'S', 'T', 'U', 'V', 'W', 'X', 'Y', 'Z'. 'Z1', 'Z2', 'Z3', 'Z4', 'Z5' to 'Z16'. He contended that on perusal of these notifications, it discloses that large extents of land were excluded from the acquisition on the ground that either the lands were garden lands or nursery lands and also for various other reasons. He contended that the acquisition is therefore an outcome of colourable exercise of power. He also contended that the respondent No.2 was required to execute the Scheme within five years as contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act and since the petitioner was driven from pillar to post, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari declaring the scheme known as Banashankari 5th Stage is lapsed in so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act. 2. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure 'Z17' dated 29.01.2011 and direct to delete the land of the petitioner invoking Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act keeping in view the notifications issued under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their statement of objections contending that the final notification was published in the official Gazette on 17.09.1997 wherein the land of the petitioner is shown at Sl. Nos.72 and 73. It is stated that subsequently possession of the land was taken in respect of the land bearing Sy. 5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their statement of objections contending that the final notification was published in the official Gazette on 17.09.1997 wherein the land of the petitioner is shown at Sl. Nos.72 and 73. It is stated that subsequently possession of the land was taken in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.84 after following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the L.A. Act'). It is also contended that the petitioner's challenge to the land acquisition is already negatived and thereafter, the award is passed and the possession of the land is taken by the Bengaluru Development Authority and delivered to the Engineering Department on 07.01.2000. The respondent No.2 claimed that an award amount of Rs.22,86,037/- was passed on 08.12.1999 and after the same was communicated to the land lady on 31.12.1999, the possession of the land was taken over by the Revenue Inspector and handed over to the Engineering Section on 07.01.2000. It is also contended that the layout could not be formed in the land in question in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No.9932 of 2000 before this Court and that after issue of the final notification, more than 80% of the lands are utilized for formation of the layout. Therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed that the acquisition cannot be declared to have lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. 6. Following the above, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an additional statement of objections contending that 1458 Acres 21 guntas was the total notified area in the final notification. However, possession was handed over to the Engineering Section in respect of 421 Acres 17 guntas including the land in question out of which 263.21 Acres was denotified and the remaining land was under litigation. The respondent No.2 enclosed a detailed statement, a perusal of which discloses the following: Sl.No. Details Acres- Guntas 1 Built-up area 279-06 2 Deleted subsequent to the orders in Writ Petitions (Hon'ble High Court) 58-03 3 De-notified land 205-18 4 Layout formed by BDA 116-27 5 Government land 255-04 6 Land under litigation 544-03 Total notified land 1458-21 7. In so far as Uttarahalli village is concerned, it is found that out of 500 Acres 06 guntas, only 16 Acres 15 guntas is utilized for the formation of the layout. 8. In so far as Uttarahalli village is concerned, it is found that out of 500 Acres 06 guntas, only 16 Acres 15 guntas is utilized for the formation of the layout. 8. The learned Single Judge noticed the above facts and passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 holding that there is no substantial implementation of the Scheme. The learned Single Judge held that though the final notification was issued during the year 1997 but the extent of land utilized for the formation of the layout was 116 Acres 27 guntas as of the year 2014 and thus held that the Scheme could not be said to be substantially implemented. 9. The learned Single Judge also delved upon the question as to whether the lapsing of the Scheme would result in lapsing of the acquisition. To this, the learned Single Judge deciphered the mahazar under which the possession of the land in question was taken. The learned Single Judge found that the mahazar was just like the many mahazars that were drawn by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which were cyclostyled forms where some of the blanks were either filled or not filled and the parentage of the persons shown as witnesses and their addresses were not found in the mahazar. The signature of the owner was also not found on the mahazar. The learned Single Judge therefore, held that the document under which the possession of the property was taken was nebulous and held that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot establish the taking over of possession of the land in question. The learned Single Judge therefore held as under: "There is no hesitation in this case as well to negate the document, which seeks to establish the taking over of possession. The mere recording of taking over of possession of land by itself would not satisfy this Court unless it was also capable of being established if the parties were called upon to tender evidence." 10. On the basis of such nebulous documents, it would not be possible for the Bengaluru Development Authority to proceed further in that direction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the possession of the land has been taken. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the lapsing of the Scheme would also result in lapsing of the acquisition insofar as the land of the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the possession of the land has been taken. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the lapsing of the Scheme would also result in lapsing of the acquisition insofar as the land of the petitioner is concerned. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are in appeal before this Court. 11. Curiously, the respondent No.1, who was the author of the final notification and the authority which approved the Scheme, is not in appeal before us. 12. Acquisition of land, be it for any infrastructure project or for any industrial use or for drawing development schemes as the metropolis grows, has churned up enormous litigation. The primary reason running common through all such litigation is the selective discrimination of land and land owners by the State and statutory bodies while identifying lands for acquisition. Though it is now trite that a land owner cannot approach the Court seeking the perpetuation of such discrimination as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment rendered in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS, 2010 7 SCC 129 . Para No.143 of the said judgment reads as under: "143. We are conscious of the fact that when a person subjected to blatant discrimination, approaches a court seeking equal treatment, he expects relief similar to what others have been granted. All that he is interested is getting relief for himself, as others. He is not interested in getting the relief illegally granted to others, quashed. Nor is he interested in knowing whether others were granted relief legally or about the distinction between positive equality and negative equality. In fact he will be reluctant to approach courts for quashing the relief granted to others on the ground that it is illegal, as he does not want to incur the wrath of those who have benefited from the wrong action. As a result, in most cases those who benefit by the illegal grants/actions by authorities, get away with the benefit, while others who are not fortunate to have "connections" or "money power" suffer. But these are not the grounds for courts to enforce negative equality and perpetuate the illegality." Yet we cannot lose sight of the fact that this Court is an Arbiter between a citizen and the mighty State and Courts cannot shut its eyes to a palpable colourable exercise of power. 13. But these are not the grounds for courts to enforce negative equality and perpetuate the illegality." Yet we cannot lose sight of the fact that this Court is an Arbiter between a citizen and the mighty State and Courts cannot shut its eyes to a palpable colourable exercise of power. 13. In so far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No.1 sanctioned a Scheme for formation of Banashankari V Stage layout to be formed in 1458 Acres 21 guntas of land in Uttarahalli, Marasandra, Vaddarapalya, Doddakallasandra, Yelachenahalli, Channasandra, Bikasipura, Vasanthapura, Konanakunte of Uttarahalli hobli and Halagevaderahalli of Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Following the sanction of such Scheme under Section 18 of the BDA Act, a final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act was issued on 16.09.1997, which was published in the Gazette on 17.09.1997. In so far as Uttarahalli village is concerned, 500 Acres 06 guntas was notified including the land of the petitioner. It is stated that the award in respect of the land of the petitioner was passed on 31.12.1999 and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued on 31.12.1999 and since the petitioner was not residing in the village, the notice under Section 12(2) was pasted on the outer door of the house on 31.12.1999. The respondent No.2 has produced Annexure 'R3' (page No.162) which discloses that the same was issued on 31.12.1999 requiring the Executive Engineer (Assistant Executive Engineer) of respondent No.2 to be present at the spot on 06.01.2000 to take over possession of the land. Curiously, in the mahazar (Annexure 'R4') drawn evidencing the taking over of possession, it is found that the Executive Engineer was not present on 06.01.2000 at the spot. The mahazar shows that the Executive Engineer took possession of the land on 07.01.2000. This means that the Executive Engineer was not present on 06.01.2000 and there is no corresponding intimation by the revenue officials of respondent No.2 to the Engineering section to be present at the spot on 07.01.2000 to take possession. It therefore belies the contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that possession was taken over on 06.01.2000 and handed over to the Engineering Section. It is found in the mahazar that there existed a house on the land. However, it is not known whether the house was taken over and / or demolished. It therefore belies the contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that possession was taken over on 06.01.2000 and handed over to the Engineering Section. It is found in the mahazar that there existed a house on the land. However, it is not known whether the house was taken over and / or demolished. In addition, the notice under Section 12(2) of the BDA Act discloses that the land acquired was garden land. The petitioner has claimed that there are mango trees existing on the property which are more than 25 to 30 years. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has found that the entire land is vacant. This apart, the owner was not present and the details of the witnesses is not forthcoming from the mahazar. There are blanks in the mahazar making it difficult to accept the sanity of this document. The Apex Court has held in a catena of decisions, the mode and manner of taking possession and the latest in the long line of judgments is in the case of N.A.L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS, 2018 AIR(SC) 763 . 14. The mother of the petitioner had earlier challenged the acquisition of the land in Writ Petition No.9932 of 2000 which was ultimately rejected in terms of the order dated 02.07.2002 (Annexure 'R7'). It is found that the respondent No.1 has denotified several parcels of land from acquisition in Uttarahalli hobli. 15. The respondent No.2 in its additional statement of objections has placed on record the details of land notified for formation of Banashankari V stage and the status of the land as on that date. The same is extracted below: Sl.No. Details Acres- Guntas 1 Built-up area 279-06 2 Deleted subsequent to the orders in Writ Petitions (Hon'ble High Court) 58-03 3 De-notified land 205-18 4 Layout formed by BDA 116-27 5 Government land 255-04 6 Land under litigation 544-03 Total notified land 1458-21 16. Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 mandates the following: "27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years.-Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative." 17. Authority to execute the scheme within five years.-Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative." 17. In view of the statement made on oath by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before this Court by their additional statement of objections, it is clear that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not substantially implemented the Scheme as mandated. The respondent No.2 has claimed that 544.03 Acres of land was under litigation and that it had formed a layout only in respect of 116.27 Acres while more than 263 Acres was denotified from acquisition. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not disclosed the status of the litigation that afflicted 544.03 Acres of land and as to whether those lands were available for development of the Scheme or not. It is therefore evident that the respondent No.2 and 3 have failed to substantially implement the Scheme and thus, have failed to comply with the mandate of Section 27 of the BDA Act. 18. The Apex Court in the case of OFFSHORE HOLDINGS (P) LTD. v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY while considering the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the BDA Act has held as follows: "38. On a conjunctive reading of the provisions of Sections 27 and 36 of the State Act, it is clear that where a scheme lapses, the acquisition may not. This, of course, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Where, upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. An argument to the contrary cannot be accepted for the reason that on vesting, the land stands transferred and vested in the State/Authority free from all encumbrances and such status of the property is incapable of being altered by fiction of law either by the State Act or by the Central Act. Both these Acts do not contain any provision in terms of which property, once and absolutely, vested in the State can be reverted to the owner on any condition. Both these Acts do not contain any provision in terms of which property, once and absolutely, vested in the State can be reverted to the owner on any condition. There is no reversal of the title and possession of the State. However, this may not be true in cases where acquisition proceedings are still pending and land has not been vested in the Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. 39. What is meant by the language of Section 27 of the BDA Act i.e. "provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative", is that if the acquisition proceedings are pending and where the scheme has lapsed, further proceedings in terms of Section 36(3) of the BDA Act i.e. with reference to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act shall become inoperative. Once the land which, upon its acquisition, has vested in the State and thereafter vested in the Authority in terms of Section 36(3); such vesting is incapable of being disturbed except in the case where the Government issues a notification for revesting the land in itself, or a corporation, or a local Authority in cases where the land is not required by the Authority under the provisions of Section 37(3) of the BDA Act." (underlining supplied) 19. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the case of acquisition of land for formation of RMV II Stage in a judgment rendered in the case of DR. A. PARTHASARATHY AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal Nos.5752 to 5756 connected with 6828 to 6832 of 2012 (disposed off on 28.10.2015) had held that the Bangalore Development Authority had failed to implement the Scheme within the time allowed and declared that the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act are not applicable. 20. In our view, the learned Single Judge has carefully considered the aforesaid facts and has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to implement the Scheme within the time allowed and therefore, declared that the Scheme of formation of Banashankari V stage in so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned has lapsed. The learned Single Judge also held that in view of the fact that the possession of the land was not taken, the document under which possession was taken was clearly nebulous. The learned Single Judge also held that in view of the fact that the possession of the land was not taken, the document under which possession was taken was clearly nebulous. It is necessary and pertinent to reiterate that once a scheme sanctioned under Section 18 of the BDA Act has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, then the obvious corollary is that the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act become inoperative. Under the BDA Act, the land which is acquired vests in the Government only upon a notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued. However, since we have held that taking over of possession is nebulous, the question of issuing a notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not arise. Hence, we hold that the land acquired is not vested in the Government. Therefore, the lapsing of the Scheme would invariably result in the lapsing of the acquisition. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of ANTHONY REDDY AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2019 2 KarLJ 629 while considering the acquisition has also held that the lapsing of the Scheme would result in lapsing of the acquisition. 21. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned Single Judge. However, lapse of the Scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act does not mean that the acquisition has lapsed. Therefore, we pass the following Order: 22. Writ Appeal is dismissed subject however to the above observation. No order as to cost. IN WRIT APPEAL No.435 OF 2017 23. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition Nos.13608 to 13610 of 2014 have in this Writ Appeal assailed the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge following the Order passed in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 allowed the instant Writ Petition Nos.13608 to 13610 of 2014 and declared that the scheme of formation of Banashankari V Stage layout had lapsed in view of its nonimplementation within 5 years. 24. The facts as stated in the writ petitions are that petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 04 Acres 25 guntas in Sy. No.98 of Uttarahalli village, Bengaluru South Taluk. 24. The facts as stated in the writ petitions are that petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 04 Acres 25 guntas in Sy. No.98 of Uttarahalli village, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is stated that the above land and other lands were notified by the respondent No.2 under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 06.04.1989. A final notification was issued on 09.05.1994 and gazetted on 18.05.1994. The petitioners' father (Sri H. Chikkanna) challenged the acquisition before this Court in Writ Petition No.23075 of 1994, which was disposed of in terms of the order dated 19.09.1996. It was held that in the absence of sanction of a scheme under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act, no notification under Section 19(1) can be issued. This Court also noticed that the Bengaluru Development Authority had not notified the kathedars after a notification under section 17(1) was issued. Thus, this Court permitted the petitioners to file objections and the BDA was required to consider such objections as per Section 18(1) of the BDA Act and proceed thereafter in accordance with law. It is stated that the respondent No.2 thereafter issued a notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act on 16.09.1997 which was again challenged by the petitioners' father in writ petition No.16255 of 1998. This Court in terms of the Order dated 31.08.1998, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the notification in respect of the petitioners lands and reserved liberty to the Government to issue fresh declaration only after considering the objections/representations of the petitioners in accordance with Section 18(1) of the BDA Act. Following the above, a final notification was issued on 07.10.1999, which was published in the official gazette on 11.10.1999. The petitioners herein challenged the aforesaid notification in Writ Petition No.1886 of 2000. The learned Single Judge in terms of the Order dated 02.07.2002 held that sanction of a scheme under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act was unnecessary as the same was saved by the Order passed on 31.08.1998 and thus dismissed all the Writ Petitions. The petitioners herein challenged the aforesaid notification in Writ Petition No.1886 of 2000. The learned Single Judge in terms of the Order dated 02.07.2002 held that sanction of a scheme under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act was unnecessary as the same was saved by the Order passed on 31.08.1998 and thus dismissed all the Writ Petitions. The order dated 02.07.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1886 of 2000 and other connected petitions was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal Nos.4681 to 4682 of 2002 and other connected appeals (including writ appeal No.4705 of 2002 filed by petitioners' father) which were disposed off in terms of the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 14.02.2003 confirming the said order of the learned Single Judge. The said Order passed in Writ Appeal No.4705 of 2002 was challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.743/2004 by the children of H.Chikkanna. The Apex Court by its Judgment dated 07.09.2010 dismissed the appeal. Even after the disposal of the writ appeals, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to implement the Scheme and therefore filed the present Writ Petition Nos.13608 to 13610 of 2014 contending that the Scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act and sought support from the judgment of the Apex Court in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 2011 3 SCC 139 . The petitioners claimed that the planning committee of respondent No.2 had inspected the land in question on 09.07.1996 and had found that Sy. No.98 was fully built up and that there were Asbestos roof sheds and that families were residing therein. They therefore, contended that the acquisition had lapsed. 25. Per contra, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their statement of objections and contended that the final notification of Banashankari V stage layout was upheld by the Court in Writ Appeal 4705 of 2002 and other connected appeals. After the disposal of the writ petitions and writ appeals, the award was passed in respect of the land owned by the petitioners and the same was approved on 04.01.2000. The possession of the land was taken on 22.01.2000 and handed over to the Engineering Section of the respondent No.2 on the same day. A notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was published and notified on 18.08.2009. The possession of the land was taken on 22.01.2000 and handed over to the Engineering Section of the respondent No.2 on the same day. A notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was published and notified on 18.08.2009. Thus, it is contended that the land vested free from all encumbrances in the respondent No.2. 26. The learned Single Judge considered the material on record and relied upon an earlier judgment of this Court in writ petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 relating to acquisition of land for formation of Banashankari V Stage wherein it was declared that the Scheme had lapsed and consequently, the learned Single Judge in line with the judgment passed in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 declared that the Scheme of Banashankari V Stage had lapsed insofar as the land bearing Sy. No.98 of Uttarahalli village belonging to the petitioners and also declared that the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act had become inoperative. 27. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge. 28. Since we have upheld the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 while disposing off the companion Writ Appeal No.595 of 2016, this Writ Appeal is also liable to be disposed off on same terms since both the proceedings relate to the same acquisition and the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.13608 to 13610 of 2014 impugned in Writ Appeal No.435 of 2017 is on the basis of the order dated 02.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013. 29. Hence, the following: ORDER This Writ Appeal is dismissed.