JUDGMENT R. Devdas, J. (Oral) - This petition has a checkered history. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 situated at Gavipura Village, which is now an integral part of the Bangalore City. A preliminary notification dated 27.11.1959 was issued by the State Government for the formation of a residential Layout in the southern side on Mount Joy. A final notification dated 22.04.1964 was issued. However, before issuance of the final notification, the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the CITB for short) passed a resolution for re-conveyance of certain lands, on 18.07.1962. In this regard, after the final notification was issued, Sri Venkata Rao, through whom the petitioners claim rights over the petition schedule properties filed a memo to withdraw W.P.No.1392/1964 and connected matters, as the CITB had undertaken to implement the resolution dated 18.07.1962 for re-conveyance of the lands to the land owners. It is relevant to notice that Sri Venkat Rao, was the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.32/1 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas and adjoining Sy.No.32/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas totally measuring 4 acres 30 guntas. However, the dispute now revolves around an extent of 115 x 140 ft. only. 2. During the course of the arguments, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, submitted that even prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification and subsequently, various portions of the property belonging to Sri Venkata Rao, have been disposed of and what remains with the family is only an extent of 115 x 140 ft. The entire extent of land was also subject to various litigations and partition. 3. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that subsequent to the withdrawal of W.P.No.1392/1964 and connected matters, Sri Venkata Rao, and his family members have continued to be in possession of the petition schedule properties without any let or hindrance from any person including the respondent-BDA or the erstwhile CITB. Khata has been registered in the office of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP for short) and property tax is being paid to the Corporation from time to time. It is also submitted that the aakarbandh would show that the petition schedule property is in the possession of Sri Venkata Rao and subsequently with the petitioners. Khata has been registered in the office of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP for short) and property tax is being paid to the Corporation from time to time. It is also submitted that the aakarbandh would show that the petition schedule property is in the possession of Sri Venkata Rao and subsequently with the petitioners. However intermittently the officials of the BDA have tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners with respect to the petition schedule properties. In the year 1984, the petition schedule property was sought to be allotted in favour of Sonar Yuvaka Sangha. However, on 03.08.2007 the allotment made in favour of Sonar Yuvaka Sangha was cancelled. Again on 22.02.2011, the respondent-BDA sought to allot the property in question in favour of the neighbouring institution viz., PES institutions. However, on going through the statement of objections and affidavits filed by the BDA, it is found that a public interest litigation in W.P.No.20032/2011 was filed challenging the allotment made in favour of P.E.S. institution. The allotment made by BDA in favour of PES institutions was therefore cancelled. It is given to understand that since BDA did not follow due procedures of law, the allotment made in favour of PES institutions was quashed and cancelled. 4. During the course of these proceedings, BDA, was called upon to file affidavits to clarify the factual aspects. Therefore, initially an affidavit was filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA on 12.04.2019. In the said affidavit it is stated that the erstwhile CITB, Bangalore, had made a list of 61 persons having assessed of compensation and the same was sent to the Civil Judge, Bangalore District, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11.06.1968. Further, as there were 61 claimants and the deposit has not been made in the name of the khatedar Sri Venkata Rao, as noted in the office noting sheet dated 18.05.2011, in the file maintained in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, it is also noted that there was a claim for releasing of the lands. Further, as there were 61 claimants and the deposit has not been made in the name of the khatedar Sri Venkata Rao, as noted in the office noting sheet dated 18.05.2011, in the file maintained in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, it is also noted that there was a claim for releasing of the lands. It is further stated that in view of the proceedings before this Court, a legal opinion was sought from the Law Officer of the BDA and as per the opinion of the Law Officer, it was decided to continue with these proceedings, since it was found that there is no incentive scheme for allotment of sites with respect to the layout formed in Banashankari area. However, what is noticeable is that in the affidavit, the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically stated that no reference with regard to payment of compensation for acquisition of land in Sy.No.32/2 is found in the office of Land Acquisition Officer. It was found that as per the records, the details of lands acquired in Sy.No.32/1 of Gavipura Village was found showing possession taken of 3 guntas for the value of Rs.43- 12. It is also stated that there are no records regarding taking of possession with respect to 3 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.32/1 and 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.32/2. It is also stated that as per the office noting No.13, the legal heirs of Venkata Rao, sought for release of an area measuring 115 x 140 ft. as they are in continuous possession for over 40 years. But the BDA demolished part of their structures on 03.05.2011 and again on 13.07.2011. However, as per the office noting No.26, the petitioners-legal heirs of Venkat Rao have rebuilt the compound and continued to be in occupation. In this regard, criminal proceedings were initiated for trespass against the petitioners who are about 22 in number. 5. Not being satisfied with the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court called upon the BDA to file another affidavit. One more affidavit dated 20.08.2019 was filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. As per the said affidavit, the notified khatedar with respect to Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 is Sri Venkata Rao and there were about 46 claimants and 23 alienees seeking reclaim of the lands in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. One more affidavit dated 20.08.2019 was filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. As per the said affidavit, the notified khatedar with respect to Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 is Sri Venkata Rao and there were about 46 claimants and 23 alienees seeking reclaim of the lands in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. It was also found from the file notings that as the Special Land Acquisition Officer is not the competent authority to re-convey any land, the claimants were informed to approach the Chairman, CITB in such matters. It was also noticed in the noting that several sites were formed in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 and sold to several persons and therefore, it was not possible to say what extent one has purchased in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. Along with the affidavit a copy of the award and also mahazar copies have been annexed. 6. Finally, the Commissioner, BDA filed an affidavit dated 02.11.2019 answering the issues relating to the mahazar drawn by the competent authority i.e., the Revenue Inspector from the Office of the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, the then CITB, Bangalore, for taking possession of the lands in Sy.No.32/1 and 32/2. It has been stated in the affidavit that from the records it was found that a resolution came to be passed by the CITB on 18.07.1962, wherein it is stated that Sy.Nos.7, 8, 9, 11, 22, 23, 24, 27, 33 to 41 etc. of Gavipura Village, is part of the scheme of the CITB sanctioned to form a Layout known as First Stage Layout from Banashankari to Mysore. 7. It is stated that in the resolution it was discussed with regard to the reconveyance of plots to the owners which may be favourably considered upon certain conditions i.e., lands have to be handed over to the CITB immediately, the private layout will have to fit in the plan of CITB, the necessary layout charges will be actual cost plus 10% surcharge, the supply of water is not guaranteed and the area shown as parks, playgrounds, civic amenities sites in the CITB plan will not be reconveyed etc. 8. 8. However, most importantly, it has been stated that two separate awards were passed with regard to Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 on 08.05.1967 by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, CITB, Bangalore, giving particulars of various land owners requesting for reconveyance of their sites and that few of them have claimed compensation at Rs.35/- per square yard. Further, list of various persons are mentioned to whom notices under Sections 11 and 14 of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued by giving names of various persons including the name of Venkata Rao at Sl.No.26. It is also stated that two separate mahazars were drawn with respect to the two properties on 14.06.1967. The mahazar was drawn by the Revenue Inspector from the office of the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, wherein it is mentioned that those lands are in the possession of the then CITB. 9. However, most importantly, in paragraph-9 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the resolution dated 18.07.1962 which is said to have been taken note of by this Court in W.P.No.399/1965 while permitting the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition, is not found and the memo dated 27.06.1966 said to have been filed by the CITB is not found in the office of the CITB. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, while drawing the attention of this Court to the copy of the resolution at Annexure R1 filed along with the affidavit of the Commissioner, submits that at the request of the Srinagar Association a Private Layout, the resolution was passed by the Board of CITB accepting to reconvey the lands in Sy.No.7, 8, 9, 11, 23, 24, 27, 33 to 41 etc. of Katriguppa and Gavipura Villages, which would show that except Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2, all the other survey numbers were left out from acquisition. 11. The learned Senior Counsel further, while drawing the attention of this Court to the award which was produced at Annexure R2 along with the affidavit of the Commissioner, submits that the Special land Acquisition officer, has noticed in the award that Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 are clubbed together and they are all parceled into small sites and several transactions relating to small bits have taken place. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued to persons including Sri M.Venkata Rao. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued to persons including Sri M.Venkata Rao. It has also been noted that several persons have filed claim applications along with the dates mentioned therein requesting for reconveyance of land or compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq. yard. The names of 46 persons along with the dates when the applications have been made and for what purpose the application has been made has been noted down in the award itself. Further, it is stated that notices under Sections 11 and 14 of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued to 55 persons. At Sl.No.26 the name of Sri Venkata Rao is reflected. However, it is stated that service is made on one S.Narayan. Further, in response to the notices, it is noticed that some of the persons have filed their claim applications with the dates shown against their names. The claim regarding payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq. yard has been rejected, as being exorbitant. 12. It is further stated that as the Special Land Acquisition officer is not the competent authority to reconvey any land, therefore, the claimants are at liberty to approach the Chairman, CITB, in that matter. It is also stated that since several bits and pieces of sites have been carved out and sold to several persons, it is not possible to say what is the extent one has purchased in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. Consequently, it is ordered that the entire amount of compensation payable shall be sent to the Civil Judge, Bangalore District, for being kept in judicial custody under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Annexure R3 filed along with the affidavit of the Commissioner is the copy of the mahazar. Learned Senior Counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to the second page of the mahazar, submits that the signature of Venkata Rao is not found therein. It is also submitted that as per the document, it says the signatures pertain to the panchas and not to the owners of the individual sites or that of Sri Venkata Rao, who is admittedly the owner of the entire extent of Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. It is also submitted that except the signature, there is no name or address even of the persons who are said to be the panchas. 13. It is also submitted that except the signature, there is no name or address even of the persons who are said to be the panchas. 13. Annexure R4 filed along with the affidavit of the Commissioner is similar to the award at Annexure R2. However, in the first page of both the documents the difference is pointed out that Annexure R2 pertains to the award in respect of Sy.No.32/1, while Annexure R4 pertains to Sy.No.32/2. 14. At this juncture, learned Counsel for respondent-BDA submits that in the second page of Annexure R3 mahazar, it may be noticed that there is an endorsement stating that possession has been taken with respect to 3 acres and 10 guntas in Sy.No.32/1 by the Revenue Surveyor of the Board. 15. Similarly Annexure R5 is the mahazar where an endorsement is written to show that possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.32/2 has been taken by the Revenue Surveyor of the Board. But, what is noticeable is that similar to the mahazar at Annexure R3, the signatures of the panchas are evident, but there is no name nor address of the panchas and no signature of the owners of the property is found. 16. In this background, the learned Senior Counsel submits that as is evident from the affidavit filed by the Commissioner as well as the documents submitted, though it has been stated that award has been passed, there is nothing to show that the compensation has been deposited in the Civil Court. Admittedly, by way of an affidavit the Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officers have sworn to the fact that there are no other documents in the custody of the Bangalore Development Authority, which would throw any light on the question of deposit of the compensation amount before the Civil Court. 17. It is further submitted that it is also an admitted fact that the petitioners and all the other persons to whom bits and pieces of properties in the form of sites were sold by Sri Venkata Rao and his forefathers continue to be in possession. The learned Senior Counsel submits that it is also on record that the BDA tried to interfere with the property in question i.e., an area measuring 115 x 140 ft. by allotting the same to Sonar Yuvaka Sangha in the year 1984 and thereafter to PES Institution in the year 2011. The learned Senior Counsel submits that it is also on record that the BDA tried to interfere with the property in question i.e., an area measuring 115 x 140 ft. by allotting the same to Sonar Yuvaka Sangha in the year 1984 and thereafter to PES Institution in the year 2011. It is also an admitted fact that both the allotments have stood cancelled. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the conduct of the respondent- BDA should also be taken into consideration, having regard to the fact that the respondent-authority has not initiated action against any of the other properties carved out of Sy.No.32/1 and 32/2, while the BDA and its Officers have been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the piece of property measuring 115 x 140 ft. which is in the possession of the petitioners. It is submitted that if really the BDA has taken possession as per the mahazar that were produced along with the affidavit of the Commissioner, then they should have placed on record materials to substantiate their contention that a Layout has been formed by them and sites have been allotted to persons seeking allotment, under the relevant Rules governing the allotment of sites. It is also submitted that there is no material placed on record to show that notice under Section 16(2) has been published as required under the Land Acquisition Act, before taking possession of the land in question. 18. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh And Others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258 to submit that as per the statutory scheme, the Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to persons interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons have to be paid the said sum mentioned in the award, it being well settled that the award is only an offer which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants. If accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as soon as possible after making the award. Such persons have to be paid the said sum mentioned in the award, it being well settled that the award is only an offer which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants. If accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as soon as possible after making the award. It is further submitted that it is only in a situation where the persons interested refuse consent to receive monies payable, or there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there is any dispute as to the title to receive compensation or its apportionment, only then the Collector is to deposit the amount of compensation in the Reference Court. It is pointed out from the very same decision where Their Lordships have taken note of the another decision in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. R.Hanumaiah reported in (2005) 12 SCC 508 that after making the award under Section 11 the Collector can take possession of the land under Section 16 which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It is in this regard that it was submitted that as contemplated in Section 16(2), notices were required to be issued and when it is an admitted position that such notice has not been issued, then the acquisition should fail. 19. Similarly, reliance was also placed on the decision of Ram Chand And Others v. Union of India And Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 44 to submit that even in matters where there was no specific provision regarding time-limit for making award, it has been held that before the introduction of the Amendment Act, when Section 11A was introduced, the authorities were at liberty to proceed with the acquisition proceedings, irrespective of any schedule or time-frame and to complete the same as and when they desired. However, it was held that it is settled position that in a statute where for exercise of power no time-limit is fixed, it has to be exercised within a time which can be held to be reasonable. 20. Reliance was also placed on two decisions of this Court, in the cases of M.Sreenivas v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2016) 6 KLJ 434 and Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, Rep. 20. Reliance was also placed on two decisions of this Court, in the cases of M.Sreenivas v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2016) 6 KLJ 434 and Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Others reported in ILR 2018 Kar 2144 . 21. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that as is evident from the award and the discussion made therein which had been reiterated in the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Commissioner, all lands in Gavipura Village which were initially notified for acquisition have been dropped from the acquisition proceedings except Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. The apprehension of the learned Counsel for the BDA is that after mentioning of the Survey numbers i.e., 7, 8, 9, 11, 22, 23, 24, 27, 33 to 41 it is followed by the word etc and the said word should not be misconstrued to include Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. In other words, when there is no specific mention of Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2, it cannot be taken as if the Board resolved to reconvey all the other lands including Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2. Moreover, it is submitted that when once it has been noted in the award that the compensation has been determined and the same was directed to be deposited before the Civil Court, there need not be any other proof to show that the Land Acquisition Officer did not pass the award or deposit the compensation before the Civil Court. 22. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsels for the respondents and perused the petition papers. 23. Since much has been said about the determination of compensation and award being passed, this Court has looked into the documents produced along with the affidavit submitted by the Commissioner of BDA. As could be seen from the other two awards, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has taken note of the requisitions and applications made by several persons seeking reconveyance of the bits and pieces of properties in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 which were disposed of by Sri Venkata Rao, or his predecessors. 24. What remains with the petitioners is only a small piece of property measuring 115 x 140 ft. out of nearly 4 acres and 30 guntas of land. 24. What remains with the petitioners is only a small piece of property measuring 115 x 140 ft. out of nearly 4 acres and 30 guntas of land. It is relevant to notice that all the lands in Gavipura Village except Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 have been left out of the acquisition proceedings. It is hard to imagine how the BDA, after more than 60 years from the date of the preliminary notification is staking claim with respect to a piece of property measuring 115 x 140 ft. when admittedly nothing has been done with respect to the so called 4 acres and 30 guntas of land towards which it is stated that award has been drawn and compensation has been deposited before the Civil Court. Admittedly no layout is formed even in this 4 acres and 30 guntas of land by the BDA. No material is placed on record to show what action the authority has initiated against the entire extent of 4 acres and 30 guntas. The concentration is only on this piece of land measuring 115 x 140 ft. No material is placed on record to show that the statutory notice under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued before taking possession of the lands. The mahazar does not bear the signature of the land owner. More importantly, when it is an admitted position that several owners seeking claim that they had purchased bits and pieces of properties in the nature of residential sites carved out of Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 in the nature of residential sites carved out of Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 had made applications seeking re-conveyance of their pieces of property, it cannot be imagined as to how Special Land Acquisition Officer, having noticed that many persons have staked their claim with respect to the bits and pieces of property, would say that the Revenue Surveyor has taken possession of the property even without the signature of the original owner Venkata Rao, let alone the other site owners who number to around 61, even as per the discussion in the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special land Acquisition Officer as well as the Commissioner have admitted in their affidavits that the mahazar contains the signature of panchas and not the signature of new land owners. The Special land Acquisition Officer as well as the Commissioner have admitted in their affidavits that the mahazar contains the signature of panchas and not the signature of new land owners. Therefore, at any rate it cannot be held that the respondent-BDA has taken possession of the land in accordance with law. This position continues since it is admitted by the respondent-BDA that they have not formed any layout in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 of Gavipura Village. 25. In the recent judgment of this Court and in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be islands of formation of layouts by BDA. Small pieces of lands cannot be formed into a layout or the scheme as contemplated cannot be formed in bits and pieces of islands of property. If all the neighbouring lands have been deleted from acquisition or the land owners have succeeded in getting the acquisition proceedings in respect of their properties, then a small piece of property which is left out cannot be permitted to be utilized by BDA or the acquiring body for formation of residential layouts. 26. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, in the case of Delhi Development Authority (supra), it has been held that as soon as the award is made under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Collector is to give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally. It was further held as follows: '9. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, insofar as the making of award and the payment of compensation to persons interested, is as follows. On the day fixed, the Collector after the inquiry that is contemplated under Section 11, has to make an award which must contain the necessary ingredients mentioned in Section 11. As soon as the award is made, under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Collector is to give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally. As soon as the award is made, under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Collector is to give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally. This provision, when read with Section 31 of the Act, makes it clear that the statutory scheme is that the Collector is to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons who are interested and entitled thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award itself. It is, therefore, clear that under the statutory scheme, the Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to persons interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons have to be paid the sum mentioned in the award, it being well settled that the award is only an offer which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants. If accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as soon as possible after making the award. It is only in a situation where the persons interested refuse consent to receive monies payable, or there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount of compensation in the Reference Court. It is only after these steps have been taken that the Collector may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Act further makes it clear, on a reading of Section 34, that where such compensation is neither paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, interest is payable @ 9% p.a. for one year and 15% p.a. thereafter. This is because a person becomes divested of both possession and title to his property without compensation having been paid or deposited, as the case may be. This statutory scheme has been adverted to in some of the decisions of this Court.' 27. It was noticed in the case of Sunder v. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 that any delay in making payment of the compensation awarded should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. This statutory scheme has been adverted to in some of the decisions of this Court.' 27. It was noticed in the case of Sunder v. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 that any delay in making payment of the compensation awarded should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. As noticed earlier, in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. R.Hanumaiah (supra), it was held that Section 31 contemplates that on making of an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender amount of compensation awarded by him to the person interested and entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay to them unless prevented by any one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the subsequent clauses. 28. Admittedly, there is no material available with the BDA to show that the provisions governing the making of the award and tendering the amount to the land losers have been complied with. Most importantly, what is noticeable is even under the award there is a statement made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the award amount shall be deposited before the Civil Court. But there is no material placed on record to show that the award amount was really deposited before the Civil Court. The land losers were not notified regarding the deposit of the amount nor were they called upon to collect the compensation amount awarded. 29. In Ram Chands case (supra), at paragraph- 14, it has been held as follows: '..The Act is consistent with the second proviso to Article 31-A. But, whether the constitutional and statutory requirement of the payment of the market value to the persons, whose lands have been compulsorily acquired, is not being circumvented and violated by keeping the land acquisition proceedings pending for more than a decade and half, without making the awards and paying the compensation, which has been pegged to the dates of notifications under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, which in the present cases had been issued 14 to 21 years before the making of the awards.' 30. As regards the mahazar, the learned Senior Counsel has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of M.Sreenivas v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (supra), wherein it was held that the mahazar is in a cyclostyled form. It just contains the signature of five persons. As regards the mahazar, the learned Senior Counsel has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of M.Sreenivas v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (supra), wherein it was held that the mahazar is in a cyclostyled form. It just contains the signature of five persons. Neither their names nor their addresses are shown in the mahazar. It is next only to impossible to ascertain the identity of the mahazar witnesses. It is profitable to refer to this Courts decision in the case of Meenakshi Thimmaiah and Others v. State of Karnataka And Another reported in ILR 2010 Kar 6 , wherein it was held that if it is not forthcoming as to from whom the possession is taken and if the identity of the signatures to the mahazar is not ascertainable, the version of taking the possession cannot be accepted. 31. Similarly while noticing the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 386 , it was held that vesting of the land under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, presupposes the actual taking of possession and till that is done, the legal presumption of vesting enshrined in Section 16 cannot be raised in favour of the acquiring authority. 32. Lastly, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka (supra), while noticing the decision of the Division Bench in the case of H.N. Shivanna and Others v. The State of Karnataka And Another reported in (2013) 4 KCCR 2793 also noticed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chand (supra), wherein it was held that two years is held to be a reasonable time within which a final notification has to be issued, if there are no hurdles placed in the acquisition by the land owners or if there are no hurdles in law. Even in the absence of any such prescriptions expressly under the statute, having regard to the fact that the right to property is a constitutional right and the person whose land is sought to be acquired is entitled to compensation at the market rate, such a compensation has to be paid to him at the earliest and therefore, the power of acquisition should be exercised within a reasonable time so that the person who lost the land is duly compensated at the earliest point of time. So noticing, the Division Bench quashed the acquisition proceedings. 33. In the present case, though the preliminary notification was issued on 27.11.1959, final notification was issued on 22.04.1964 and award was passed on 08.05.1967. No material is forthcoming to show that the compensation awarded was offered to the petitioners or the notified land owner. No notice is forthcoming to show that there is compliance of Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no material to show that the compensation awarded has been deposited before the Civil Court and no intimation was issued to the land owner regarding the reference. 34. The petitioners continue to be in possession of the land in question for more than 60 years now. The petitioners continue to pay property tax to the BBMP and all the neighbourhood property which was sought to be acquired under the notification, to an extent of 4 acres and 30 guntas in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 of Gavipura Village is not in the possession of the BDA. Various land owners who had made their applications and requisitions to the Land Acquisition Officer seeking re-conveyance of their bits and pieces of properties have continued to be in possession without any let or hindrance from the BDA. That being the position, the respondent-BDA has failed to prove that they have complied with the statutory requirements as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, more specifically, Sections 12(2), 16(2) and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. 35. Therefore, this Court proceeds to declare that the acquisition proceedings under the final notification dated 22.04.1964 as regards Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 stand abandoned and lapsed. Consequently, the preliminary notification dated 27.11.1959 and the final notification dated 22.04.1964 as regards Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 of Gavipura Village, is declared to have been abandoned and lapsed. 35. Therefore, this Court proceeds to declare that the acquisition proceedings under the final notification dated 22.04.1964 as regards Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 stand abandoned and lapsed. Consequently, the preliminary notification dated 27.11.1959 and the final notification dated 22.04.1964 as regards Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 of Gavipura Village, is declared to have been abandoned and lapsed. Consequently, this Court hereby directs the second respondent-BDA not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property measuring 115 x 140 ft. carved out of Sy.Nos.32/1 and 32/2 of the erstwhile Gavipura Village, which is now within the Corporation limits and assigned new Nos.5, 1st Cross, 2nd Block, Banashankari 1st Stage, Bangalore, as per the boundaries given thereto. It is ordered accordingly.