JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.3.2013 passed in Writ Petition Nos.1813918141 of 2011 and connected matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions, insofar as it pertains to the lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3, as not being eligible for dropping from denotification and allowed the writ petitions in part insofar as Survey No.153/1 is concerned, by directing the State to delete the said item of land from the acquisition proceedings, the writ petitioners have preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of lands bearing Survey Nos.153/1, 156/2 and 156/3 of Ullal village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, totally measuring about 6 acres 3 guntas. It is the claim of the petitioners that the land bearing survey No.153/1 is a garden land and consists of coconut trees and in the lands bearing survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3, the petitioners claim to have constructed a residential house, a cattle shed and a portion of the land has been utilised as a graveyard. 4. The State Government issued a preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which was duly published in the official gazette on 24.1.2002, intending to acquire various lands, including the lands of the petitioners to form a residential layout known as ‘Sir M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout’. The preliminary notification was followed by a final notification dated 31.10.2002 published in the official gazette. The petitioners claimed to have filed objections, which were ignored by the authorities. The petitioners challenged the validity of the proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No.2662 of 2003 and other connected cases. This Court had granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings and the said interim order continued till 30.9.2004. The writ petition was disposed off by a common order along with 1200 other writ petitions, which were filed questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings. 5. This Court while dismissing the aforementioned writ petitions, framed guidelines by which the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDA’) was required to follow and consider as to whether the lands could be deleted from acquisition proceedings. 5. This Court while dismissing the aforementioned writ petitions, framed guidelines by which the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDA’) was required to follow and consider as to whether the lands could be deleted from acquisition proceedings. The criteria that was to be met for deletion from acquisition was as depicted in the case of JUNJAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608.The land owners were given an opportunity to present their grievances before the BDA and seek deletion of lands. On such representations being made by the land owners, the BDA was to bear in view the status of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, subsequent to the preliminary notification and to consider whether they are similarly placed as those land owners, whose objections were upheld to the extent of 357 acres and 25 guntas, pursuant to the preliminary notification that was issued and whose lands did not find a place in the final notification. 6. The petitioners filed their representations on 18.12.2004 contending that there are about 150 coconut trees on the land bearing Survey No.153/1 and in the lands bearing Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3, structures existed. The objections of the petitioners were held to be not tenable by the BDA, on the ground that the same fell outside the parameters stipulated by this Court and in that regard, a resolution came to be passed against the petitioners. Thereafter, notices were issued under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’). It is these proceedings that were challenged by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. 7. In the writ petitions, the BDA had contended that it had drawn a layout plan and sites were formed on the lands in question and that the BDA had taken possession of the lands. It was the contention of the petitioners that there no site were formed in the layout and it was only a proposed plan setout by the BDA. This prompted the Court to appoint a Commissioner by an order dated 23.12.2012 to examine the actual physical features of the lands and submit a report. 8. It was the contention of the petitioners that there no site were formed in the layout and it was only a proposed plan setout by the BDA. This prompted the Court to appoint a Commissioner by an order dated 23.12.2012 to examine the actual physical features of the lands and submit a report. 8. The Commissioner inspected the lands in question in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and the representatives of the BDA along with the petitioners and others. The lands were identified by the officials of the BDA with reference to the village map and a copy of the layout plan. The Court Commissioner submitted his Report of Inspection with regard to all the three survey numbers, wherein he has given his categorical finding that only Survey No.153/1 measuring about 3 acres and 13 guntas consists of coconut trees which were in existence for about 2025 years and all of them formed a coconut garden. The Commissioner also enclosed a sketch of the land along with the report opining that only the land in Survey No.153/1 has remained in its original state. The petitioners disputed that portion of the report which were against the petitioners as also the finding that except a small portion of the land on the SouthEastern side as mentioned by the Commissioner, the rest of the land was under cultivation and it would come within the parameters of the law laid down in Junjammma’s case (Supra). The learned Single Judge by not accepting the contentions of the writ petitioners held that it is a finding of fact by the Commissioner that Survey No.153/1 was the only land under cultivation and in occupation of the petitioners which remained in its original state and accordingly, allowed Writ Petition Nos.1813918141 of 2011 in part only insofar as Survey No.153/1 was concerned and declared that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Junjamma’s case (Supra) insofar as that item of land in Survey No.153/1 is concerned. A direction was also issued to the State to delete Survey No.153/1 from the acquisition proceedings as has been done in the similarly situated cases. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the writ petitioners insofar as it pertains to the lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3. 9. A direction was also issued to the State to delete Survey No.153/1 from the acquisition proceedings as has been done in the similarly situated cases. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the writ petitioners insofar as it pertains to the lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petitions, Review Petition No.125 of 2015 was preferred by the writ petitioners on the ground that the Commissioner was appointed by this Court to report on the actual state of affairs, but on the contrary, the Commissioner reported that there was a mere fencing of certain land which consisted of a few coconut trees and the said land was under cultivation and it had remained in its original state. The review petition came to be rejected by the order dated 22.6.2015. Being aggrieved by the order insofar as the learned Single Judge declining to grant relief with regard to the lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3, the writ petitioners have preferred the present writ appeal. 10. Heard Sri Rajagopal M.R., learned Senior Counsel for the appellants’ Counsel, Sri Kiran Kumar T.L., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 11. The petitioners were the owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos.153/1, 156/2 and 156/3 of Ullal village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, totally measuring about 6 acres 3 guntas. These properties were inherited by the petitioners after their father’s death. A preliminary notification was issued by the State Government under Section 17(1) of the Act on 24.1.2002 intending to acquire various lands, which included the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of formation of a residential layout known as ‘Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout’. The Government issued the final notification in that regard on 31.10.2002. This came to be challenged by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.2662 of 2003. It transpires that this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings which continued in force until 30.9.2004. The petition was disposed off, by a common order along with 1200 other writ petitions which were filed questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings. This came to be challenged by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.2662 of 2003. It transpires that this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings which continued in force until 30.9.2004. The petition was disposed off, by a common order along with 1200 other writ petitions which were filed questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Though the writ petitions were dismissed, this Court laid down certain guidelines which were to be followed by the BDA to address the nature of lands and to consider whether the same could be deleted from the acquisition proceedings, if the land owners meet the criteria prescribed under those guidelines. It is necessary to refer to the guidelines laid by this Court in Junjamma’s case (supra) at paragraph No.57, which reads thus: “57. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the findings recorded on the questions raised, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The challenge to the acquisition in all these Writ Petitions fails and is accordingly rejected. The acquisition is upheld subject the following conditions. (a) The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 47465468/02, 46670677/02, 46283/02, 1765/03, 260910/03, 289104/03, 336769/03, 337071/03, 3495/03, 3939/03, 5494/03, 724952/03, 778891/03, 891820/03, 10417441/03, 10442466/03, 10468692/03, 12238/03, 12252271/03, 13509/03, 1380726/03, 1388587/03, 1390529/03, 14243/03, 1682145/03, 1684670/03, 1687397/03, 1822549/03, 1825074/03, 18711/03, 1871517/03, 16898922/03, 1692348/03, 17515/03, 1757094/03, 17595619/03, 1770428/03, 1810910/03, 19180/03, 19182197/03, 19198216/03, 19239/03, 20302341/03, 1924043/03, 1937090/03, 2074973/03, 2077599/03, 2080125/03, 2082751/03, 2085377/03, 20878902/03, 2090428/03, 20930 54/03, 2095983/03, 20997021/03, 21023047/03, 2134266/03, 21367/03, 2136891/03, 21392416/03, 2145354/03, 21673/03, 2305071/03, 2307296/03, 23098123/03, 42483517/02, 4284169/02, 46774823/02, 46852/02, 4752434/02, 124156/03, 480708/03, 9683/03, 12399424/03, 2682683/03 who are all owners of sites in question which are acquired are entitled to the following: (b) These petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of sites] Rules, 1984, within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they are not entitled to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement. (c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same. (c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same. (d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30' × 40' in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore. (e) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective siteswhich have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment [to enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay]. (f) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site. (g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20' × 30' sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of Land. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. (g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20' × 30' sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of Land. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. (h) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement Holders). (i) It is left to the discretion of the authorities also to consider the case of GPA Holders/Agreement Holders and persons who are claiming on the basis of affidavits the sites in question though they are not entitled to the same as a matter of right, only if they belong to weaker sections, poor and down—trodden. (j) The Authorities shall also consider whether these petitioners have purchased the sites by way of investment or with the intention of having a roof over their head and based on the said consideration, to pass appropriate orders, in the light of the observations made in this order. 2(a). All the petitioners who are the land owners who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for non agricultural use; (d) garden land and nursery lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational institutions and factories; (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within three months from the date of this order. (b) It is made clear that the authority shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the land owners whose objections were upheld to the extent of 357 acres 25 guntas and in respect of those lands no final notification is issued. (c) In the event the Authority come to the conclusion that those persons are similarly placed, then to denotify their lands and exclude them from acquisition. (3) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 90 days from the date of this order and thereafter the authority shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. (4) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Authority and the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemption sought for are considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the application in the light of the aforesaid directions, the Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition. (5) In Writ Petition Nos. 4403137/2002 and W.P. No. 46264/2002 as the petitioners have sold their land and have no interest in the land notified for acquisition these Writ Petitions are dismissed. (6) Government on its part should take note of the circumstances leading to this unfortunate situation, identify the departments and the authorities and their officials who are responsible for this sorry state of affairs, and ensure appropriate action is taken against all of them which is the hall mark of good governance in a democratic set up so that it would act as a deterrent in future.” 12. In terms of the aforeextracted guidelines laid down by this Court, representations were submitted by the petitioners and other land owners to the BDA to bear in view the status of their lands as on the date of the preliminary notification and to exclude any developments and improvements subsequent to the preliminary notification. The petitioners filed representations/objections on 18.12.2004 spelling out that there were 150 coconut trees and on one of the lands, the buildings and other structures were existing. These objections were held to be untenable by the BDA which went on to issue notice under Section 12 of LA Act. 13. The writ petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1813918141 of 2011 and connected matters challenging the award notices issued under Section 12 of the LA Act. These objections were held to be untenable by the BDA which went on to issue notice under Section 12 of LA Act. 13. The writ petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1813918141 of 2011 and connected matters challenging the award notices issued under Section 12 of the LA Act. In terms of the averments made in the writ petitions and on hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court was of the view that there were serious disputed questions of fact concerning all the lands bearing survey Nos.153/1, 156/2 and 156/3 and on this background, this Court appointed a Court Commissioner to inspect the spot and submit a report. The inspection was conducted in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties, representatives of the BDA, the petitioners and others. The lands were identified by the BDA with reference to the village map and a copy of the layout plan. After the inspection, the Commissioner submitted his report in terms of the directions of this Court on 13.12.2012. 14 (a). In the report of the Commissioner, it is indicated that in survey No.156/2, there is a 18 meters bitumen road formed in the northern edge of the land. To the north side of the said road, he has found 2 to 3 guntas of land, which is vacant and there is no development on that strip of land and as informed by the BDA officials, no development had been made in view of the interim order granted by this Court in certain pending proceedings and that the remaining portion on the southern side of the bitumen road was overgrown with weeds, there was no indication of any sites formed by the BDA in that portion. 14 (b). According to the BDA officials, it was reserved as a civic amenity site, but no further development could be undertaken in view of the interim order. The Commissioner on the eastern side has found a stone statue of Anjaneya Swamy and “Dhwajasthambha” and signs of dismantled stone slabs and pillars. According to the petitioners and panchas who were present, the intention was to put up a new structure. There was a small shed by the side of the dismantled temple, where construction material was stored and there were size stones apparently meant for construction. 15. According to the petitioners and panchas who were present, the intention was to put up a new structure. There was a small shed by the side of the dismantled temple, where construction material was stored and there were size stones apparently meant for construction. 15. Insofar as the land in survey No.156/3 is concerned, which is on the southern side of the land in survey No.156/2, it was found that the BDA had carried out earthwork to lay a road by digging trenches and this had been done about eight years ago and the road was sought to be formed in a northsouth direction and there were two roads said to be formed in eastwest direction. The roads could not be seen from afar as it was overgrown with weeds and therefore, it was concluded that apart from the earthwork done, there was no sign of other development by the BDA. There was no garden or cultivation except three Coconut trees and a Banyan tree, which was about 20 to 25 feet away from the Anjaneya Swamy statute and it was concluded that there is no cultivation carried on the lands nor has the BDA developed the lands in the above two survey numbers. 16. Insofar as the land in Survey No.153/1 measuring about 3 acres 13 guntas is concerned, it is found to be on the eastern side of lands in survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3. The coconut trees were about 20 to 25 years old and the coconut garden is about 100 feet away from the bitumen road to the southern side. In the middle of the coconut garden, there were two houses, one house was used as a cattle shed, another for dwelling and the other small structure being used as a borewell shed. There was also a banana garden consisting of 83 matured plants interspersed in the coconut garden. There were five Neem trees, which were about 12 years old and some Teak plants aged about 3 years and there were graves abutting the residential premises. There was open space towards the southeastern side and in that open space, there was no cultivation, but the same was enclosed by a fence. There were five Neem trees, which were about 12 years old and some Teak plants aged about 3 years and there were graves abutting the residential premises. There was open space towards the southeastern side and in that open space, there was no cultivation, but the same was enclosed by a fence. There was no development undertaken by the BDA in this item of land, except to carry out the earthwork to lay an approach road in southnorth direction connecting 18 meters bitumen road situated towards the southern side and there were stone slabs laid for a box type drainage for about 30 feet from the 18 meters bitumen road towards the southern side and this development was incomplete and even that was covered with weeds. The Commissioner has enclosed a sketch along with the report and has concluded that the land in survey No.153/1 has certainly remained in its original state. 17. In terms of the report of the Commissioner, as narrated hereinabove, which was supported by the sketch and photographs, there can be no doubt that the same would come within the guidelines laid down in the judgment of Junjamma’s case (Supra). 18. Thus, the land in Survey No.153/1 was under cultivation and is in the occupation of the petitioners and has remained in the original state in terms of the report of the Commissioner, which is a clear fact finding report. Insofar as lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3 for which the petitioners have preferred the instant appeal, again in terms of the report of the Commissioner, the BDA has carried out earthwork to lay a road by digging trenches. According to the report, it was done about eight years ago and the road was sought to be formed in the North-South direction and two roads were already formed in the EastWest direction. Thus, it is clear that there was no garden or cultivation in the said lands except three coconut trees and a Banyan tree, which was also 2025 feet away from the Anajneya Swamy Statue. Thus, it can be clearly said that the lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3 cannot be brought under the guidelines as stipulated in Junjamma’s case (supra). 19. Thus, it can be clearly said that the lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3 cannot be brought under the guidelines as stipulated in Junjamma’s case (supra). 19. The learned Single Judge having considered the entire facts of the case, by a well reasoned order, has rejected the claim of the petitioners insofar as it pertains to the lands in Survey Nos.156/2 and 156/3 and directed for deletion of the land in Survey No.153/1 from the acquisition proceedings as had been done in respect of the other similarly situated lands. Therefore, in our considered view, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.