ORDER : R. DEVDAS J. Though the matter is coming up for “Hearing on Interlocutory Application”, with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in this petition is to declare that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petition schedule properties i.e., Sy.No.36/4, Hennur Village has lapsed on account of the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent-BDA on 24.08.2005, at Annexure-D. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Land Acquisition Officer has issued an endorsement dated 24.08.2005 at Annexure-D stating that 3 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.36/4, which was notified for acquisition for the purpose of HBR I Stage Layout, and where final notification was issued on 09.1.1985, however award has not been made in view of the fact that there are unauthorized construction in the land in question. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent-BDA, where at para No.5 it has been stated that after the issuance of the final notification possession has not been taken nor award has been drawn with respect to the land in question and no further action has been taken with respect to the balance extent of land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under similar circumstances, in W.P.No.359697/2014, which was disposed of on 26.02.2014, this Court declared that the land having not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and since no award had been passed, the acquisition proceedings could not be permitted to pursue. A Division Bench in the case of Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka, represented by Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Others, reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144 noticed the decision of another Division Bench in the case of H.N.Shivanna and others vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in 2013(4) KCCR 2793 . There, it was noticed that the Apex Court in the case of Ramchand and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 1994 (1) SCC 44 had held that two years is reasonable time within which a final declaration 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 prescription expressly provided 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 persons who lost the land are duly compensated at the earliest point of time. However in that case, the Division Bench noticed that though the final notification was issued in the year 1971, neither the award was passed nor possession was taken by paying compensation. Therefore, it was held that the acquiring body had neither exercised its power within a reasonable time nor has it completed acquisition proceedings within a reasonable period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and it was declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question has stood abandoned and consequently lapsed. 6. In the light of the above, this Court finds that the respondent-BDA has in fact admitted that the preliminary notification was issued on 27.06.1978 and final notification was issued on 09.01.1985 and thereafter no award has been passed nor possession of the land in question has been taken in accordance with law. In the endorsement dated 28.04.2005 nothing is stated regarding any impediment in passing the award or payment of compensation. Therefore, in the light of the decisions mentioned above and for the reasons stated therein, this court proceeds to pass the following ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question has stood abandoned and consequently lapsed. 7. In view of the disposal of main matter, interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.