JUDGMENT Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 52989 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and the Scheme was declared to have lapsed insofar as the petitioners land is concerned, respondent Nos. 2 and 3-Bengaluru Development Authority are in appeal. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 83/3 of Madivala village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 1 acre and 14 guntas having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 26.8.1974 from one Smt. G. Susheela. It transpires that Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BDA) issued a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Act), on 19.9.1977, proposing to acquire a vast extent of land including the land belonging to the petitioner for formation of a layout called 'Byrasandra-Tavarekere-Madivala Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as BTM Layout). The petitioners name was found in the preliminary notification. The petitioner objected to the preliminary notification contending that he had developed the land even before the issuance of the said notification. The objections of the petitioner was rejected, after which, the State Government issued a final notification on 7.2.1978 for acquiring 1,703 acres of lands spreading across five villages. 4. The name of the petitioner was found in the final notification as well. Challenging both the notifications of acquisition, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4178 of 1983, which was disposed off on 27.8.1988 reserving liberty to the writ petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Screening Committee constituted by the State Government to look into the grievance of the land owners, within six weeks. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted a representation on 17.9.1988, which has not been considered even as on date. The petitioner further contends that the BDA had not taken possession of the property in question and he still continues to be in possession of the property even today. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted a representation on 17.9.1988, which has not been considered even as on date. The petitioner further contends that the BDA had not taken possession of the property in question and he still continues to be in possession of the property even today. 5. The petitioner challenged the said acquisition proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No. 52989 of 2013 seeking to quash the preliminary notification dated 19.9.1977 and final notification dated 7.2.1978 by declaring that the Scheme had lapsed as the possession had not been taken by the BDA in the manner known to law and that the property continued to be in his possession, even as on date. The learned Single Judge considered the fact that the possession of the land had not been taken in accordance with law, inasmuch as the mahazar that was drawn up for taking possession of the petitioners land in question was a cyclostyled document, wherein certain blanks were sought to be filled up and other writing/s on the document was sought to be struck out, without being signed by the concerned authorities and that a cyclostyled signature was indicated. The mahazar witnesses were unknown persons, whose credentials were not forthcoming. The mahazar would not stand the test of scrutiny of this Court. The learned Single Judge further observed that the factum of taking possession was not accepted on the ground that the BDA never issued a notice under Section 16(2) of the LA Act and Section 27 of the BDA Act would get attracted as there was no substantial implementation of the Scheme insofar as the petitioners land is concerned. On these grounds, the writ petition was allowed and it was declared that the Scheme had lapsed insofar as the petitioners land was concerned. 6. We have heard Sri M.V. Charati, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Kiran Kumar T.L., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1. 7. In the light of the aforestated facts and the order of the learned Single Judge, the following points would arise for our consideration. 1. Whether the BDA had taken possession of the petitioners property? 2. Whether the scheme had lapsed insofar as the property of the petitioner is concerned, for failure on the part of the BDA to substantially implement the Scheme? 8. Re. 1. Whether the BDA had taken possession of the petitioners property? 2. Whether the scheme had lapsed insofar as the property of the petitioner is concerned, for failure on the part of the BDA to substantially implement the Scheme? 8. Re. Point No. 1: The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property of the land measuring 1 acre and 14 guntas in Survey No. 83/3 of Madivala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The property of the petitioner became the subject matter of the acquisition wherein, 1703 acres of lands were acquired for formation of a layout called 'Byrasandra-Tavarekere-Madivala Scheme'. Objections of the petitioner that he had developed the land even before issuance of the preliminary notification was not considered and the final notification was issued by the State Government on 7.2.1978. The petitioners name figured in both the notifications. The petitioner earlier had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4178 of 1983, seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings, which came to be disposed off by the learned Single Judge, on 27.8.1988 reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a further representation to the Screening Committee constituted by the State Government. The order of the learned Single Judge, at paragraphs 2 and 3, reads as follows: '2. xxx xxx Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, this petition is dismissed reserving liberty for the petitioner to make a proper representation before Screening Committee constituted by the State Government within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order so that the Screening Committee could consider the request of the petitioner on merits. 3. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Screening Committee to go into the question whether the constructions came into existence prior to Section 17 Notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act. It is always open to the petitioner to take advantage of the Government Order and work out his right and it is for the Government to consider it in accordance with law.' 9. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the afore-extracted order of the learned Single Judge, he submitted a representation to the Screening Committee, which according to him was not considered, even as on date. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the afore-extracted order of the learned Single Judge, he submitted a representation to the Screening Committee, which according to him was not considered, even as on date. 10. In view of the aforementioned facts, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the land from the date on which he purchased the land and so also as on the date of issuance of the preliminary and final notifications. He filed writ petition No. 52989 of 2013, on the ground that the BTM Layout Scheme was not substantially implemented insofar as the petitioner is concerned and had lapsed as the possession of the land of the petitioner was not taken by the BDA. The record of rights and pahani extracts in Form No. 16 (Annexures-F to L) for the years 2008-09 to 2013-14 are produced before this Court to show that the petitioner still continues to be in possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 83/3, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas of Madivala Village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. On the strength of the aforementioned Annexures, the petitioner has proved the fact that he is still in possession of the land in question. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the BDA would contend that the BDA had taken possession of the property in question in terms of Annexure-R3 dated 20.01.1983 produced along with the statement of objections. A cursory perusal of the document at Annexure-R3 would indicate that the mahazar at the time of taking possession of the petitioners land would not satisfy the test of law. The document sought to be produced as a mahazar is totally unsatisfactory. It would further indicate that it was endorsed by the BDA during its spot inspection. The property of the petitioner contains well maintained crops and that the petitioner is himself residing there. It cannot be accepted that at the time of taking possession, the occupants of the land were notified and there were endorsements to that effect that the occupants having been evicted forcibly. If the petitioner was in possession and he was evicted forcibly, as depicted in the endorsement, the same would have been witnessed by the persons of the locality, whose identity should have been clearly spelt out. This also is not forthcoming. 12. If the petitioner was in possession and he was evicted forcibly, as depicted in the endorsement, the same would have been witnessed by the persons of the locality, whose identity should have been clearly spelt out. This also is not forthcoming. 12. If the purported witnesses cannot be identified, the very purpose of preparing the mahazar with regard to the factum of taking possession would become non est. It would always be necessary to affirm that they were present at the time of taking possession. This would be possible if their identity had been indicated at the first instance. The mahazar, in law, is an attested document by a number of persons professing to be aware of the circumstances of the case and submitted with their signatures. That is also not forthcoming. The mahazar for the reasons indicated hereinabove would not stand the test of scrutiny of law. 13. The mahazar as defined in the Wilsons Glossary, would be a document attested by a number of persons professing to be cognizant of the circumstances of the case and submitted with their signatures to the Court. It could also be a written collective attestation by several persons jointly and the list or roll of persons present. Therefore, when the said document, which ought to have been attested by a competent officer apart from details of the witnesses, when the identity of the witnesses is dubious and the signature of the competent authority is not forthcoming except for a rubber seal on the document, all these factors would unequivocally lead to the conclusion that the BDA has not taken the possession in accordance with law. 14. Yet another glaring fact is that, the BDA even as on date had not issued a notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act to declare that vesting of the land is with the BDA. The fact of not issuing a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act so far as it pertains to the property in question is not controverted by the BDA in its statement of objections filed in the writ petition. 15. The fact of not issuing a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act so far as it pertains to the property in question is not controverted by the BDA in its statement of objections filed in the writ petition. 15. It would be useful to refer to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S.M. Kannaiah v. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Urban Development Department and Others reported in ILR 2011 Kar 795 , wherein at paragraphs 8 and 9, it is held as follows: '8. Therefore, from all the above noticed decisions, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the mode of taking possession of the acquired land would depend on the nature of land. But, it can be safely concluded that when the land is agricultural land as in the instant case, the taking of possession can be evidenced by a mahazar or panchanama drawn up in the presence of witnesses which would be conclusive proof for taking possession as required under Section 16(1) of LA Act. Once it is established that the possession has been taken in accordance with law, such date becomes relevant for all purposes and the erstwhile land owner cannot claim to have continued in possession, as such possession cannot be recognised in law. 9. In the above backdrop, the crucial aspect to be determined by us is, as to whether the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner in charge of a sub-Division of a District/any Officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government, as the case may be, should be personally present at the location while drawing up the mahazar/panchanama? In the alternative, whether the drawing up of the mahazar/panchanama and the act of taking possession performed by a sub-ordinate Officer duly authorised would be due compliance of the requirement of law?' Applying the law declared by the learned Full Bench of this Court, the facts of this case would indicate that the possession still remains with the petitioner. Hence, point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner. 16. Re. Hence, point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner. 16. Re. Point No. 2: Section 27 of the BDA Act provides for execution of a Scheme within five years, which reads thus: 'Section 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. In the aforesaid provision, there is reference to Section 36 of the BDA Act, which reads as follows: '36. Provisions applicable to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement.- (1) The acquisition of land under this Act otherwise than by agreement within or without the Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Authority shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned. (3) After the land vests in the Government under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Deputy Commissioner shall, upon payment of the cost of the acquisition, and upon the Authority agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the Authority, and the land shall thereupon vest in the Authority.' 18. Section 27 of the BDA Act contains two parts. The first part states that within a period of five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the BDA Act, if the Authority fails to execute the Scheme substantially, the Scheme would lapse. The second part indicates that the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act shall become inoperative. 19. For lapsing of the Scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act, the petitioner has to establish that the Scheme has not been executed substantially within five years of the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the BDA Act. 19. For lapsing of the Scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act, the petitioner has to establish that the Scheme has not been executed substantially within five years of the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the BDA Act. The petitioner has to further establish that there must be a declaration on the part of the BDA that mere delay in execution of the Scheme cannot be considered to be dereliction of duty. 20. But, in the instant case, the acquisition proceedings are not concluded upto the stage of issuance of a notification under Section 16 of the L.A. Act. 21. In the case on hand, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner still continues to be in possession even as on date. The BDA has not issued a notification under the provisions of the LA Act, which is not disputed even in the statement of objections filed by the BDA. Thus, Section 27 of the BDA Act would get attracted insofar as the property of the petitioner is concerned as there is no substantial implementation of the Scheme. Thus, the Scheme has lapsed insofar the petitioners land is concerned. Hence, we answer point No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. 22. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any grounds warranting interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.