JUDGMENT S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ of appropriate nature to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per the preliminary notification dated 04.01.1985 at Annexure-G and the final notification dated 25.09.1986 at Annexure-H, in so far as it relates to Survey No. 11 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring 1 acre 28 guntas has stood lapsed in view of Section 27(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; or in the alternative ii. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 25.09.1986 at Annexure-H in so far as it relate to Survey No. 11 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring 1 acre 28 guntas. iii. Pass such other order as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice." 2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri R.V. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Smt. Susheela, learned senior counsel for respondents 5 to 9 and perused the material on record. 3. The various contentions urged in the petition are as follows:- (i) The petitioners have contended that the subject land bearing Sy. No. 11 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas of Kodigehali village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was purchased by petitioner No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983. The 1st petitioner formed the residential layout in the said land comprising of residential sites and petitioners 2 to 9 are the purchasers in respect of the some of the sites. It is contended that most of the petitioners have put up construction, obtained electricity and are paying taxes. (ii) It is contended that on 04.01.1985, a preliminary notification was issued by the BDA notifying various lands for acquisition for the benefits of the 3rd respondent - NTI Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., (for short' the society') for the purpose of providing housing sites to its employees; on 25.09.1986, a final notification to an extent of 210 acres including the subject land was issued. In this context, it is contended that the names of petitioners 2 to 9 and other purchasers was not contained in the final notification. (iii) Petitioner No. 1 has challenged the final notification in W.P. No. 292/1987 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.10.1993. It is contended that subsequently, several properties were excluded from acquisition proceedings and the subject land being a isolated piece of property or island which could not be develop along with the remaining part of the layout, petitioner No. 1 once again approached this Court in W.P. No. 12784/2002 challenging the final notification in respect of the subject land. In the said petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition reserving liberty in favour of petitioner No. 1 to approach the Government for de-notification of the subject land. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was placed on record by this Court which dismissed the petition as withdrawn vide final order dated 24.06.2002. It is contended that though the petitioner approached the State Government seeking de-notification, the State Government did not take any steps in this regard. (iv) The petitioners have further contended that though the mahazar and other documents suggest that possession was taken, in reality, the said documents were only paper work and possession of the subject land were never taken by the BDA. (v) It is contended that litigations referred to in paragraph-9 of the petition, petitioner No. 1 came to know that one Prabhavathi B. Chandapur had claimed under a fabricated power of attorney said to have been executed by petitioner No. 1 and had approached this Court in proceedings challenging the acquisition notifications in respect of the subject land which were dismissed right up to the Apex Court in SLP No. 702/2014. It is contended that since the said proceedings where the outcome of impersonation and fraudulent document, the said proceedings are not binding upon the petitioners. (vi) Petitioners contended that petitioner No. 1 filed one more petition in W.P. No. 23389/2011, in which his name was shown as Channabasanagouda @ Ninganagouda Hosamani @ Polis Patil. It is contended that since the said proceedings where the outcome of impersonation and fraudulent document, the said proceedings are not binding upon the petitioners. (vi) Petitioners contended that petitioner No. 1 filed one more petition in W.P. No. 23389/2011, in which his name was shown as Channabasanagouda @ Ninganagouda Hosamani @ Polis Patil. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 15.06.2012 on the ground that there were discrepancies in the name of the petitioner and on account of the earlier round of litigation, aggrieved by the same, petitioner No. 1 has filed the writ appeal in W.A. No. 1993/2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the submission made by petitioner No. 1 that liberty may be granted in his favour to obtain a declaration before the civil court about his identity. It is contended that pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court, petitioner No. 1 filed the suit in O.S. No. 622/2017 for declaration of his identity. By judgment and decree dated 22.09.2018, the suit was decreed in favour of petitioner No. 1. (vii) Petitioners have contended that no award notice was issued to them, copy of the same was not furnished and award amount was not paid/deposited by the respondents and possession was not taken from the petitioners; however, 3rd respondent - society have clandestinely included the subject land, the layout plan issued by the 4th respondent-BDA. It is further contended that since the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013') having not been complied with, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and the same have been challenged in the present petition. It is further contended that the earlier proceedings and transaction on behalf of petitioner No. 1 having been vitiated by fraud and identity of petitioner No. 1 and since the said Act of 2013 have come into force in the interregnum, there is no delay or latches in filing the present petition. It is further contended that the earlier proceedings and transaction on behalf of petitioner No. 1 having been vitiated by fraud and identity of petitioner No. 1 and since the said Act of 2013 have come into force in the interregnum, there is no delay or latches in filing the present petition. (viii) Petitioners have contended that the impugned notifications deserve to be quashed as having lapsed under Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013; that possession of the subject land have not been taken and compensation has not been paid; that the subject land is an island and isolated piece of property which is incapable of being acquired. Putting forth these contentions, petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. As stated supra, respondent No. 3 is the Society and respondent No. 4 is the BDA. Respondents 5 to 9 who have got themselves impleaded as allottees/purchasers of sites from 3rd respondent - Society, for whose benefit the subject land was acquired. 5. The 3rd respondent-Society has filed its statement of objections and have contested the present petition by denying the various allegations and claims made by the petitioners. It is contended that pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 03.01.1985 and final notification dated 25.09.1986, the SLAO passed an award on 15.09.1995, since there was an interim order passed in W.P. No. 292/1987 filed by petitioner No. 1 till the said petition was disposed of on 11.10.1993 by this Court. Pursuant to passing of an award on 14.09.1995, the award amount was deposited by the 4th respondent with the SLAO and notice in this regard was issued to petitioner No. 1 on 28.09.1995. Subsequently, actual possession of the land was taken on 05.02.2002 and notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued and published on 13.06.2002. It is therefore contended that the petitioners do not have any right, title, interest or possession over any portion of the subject land and that the same is liable to be dismissed. Subsequently, actual possession of the land was taken on 05.02.2002 and notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued and published on 13.06.2002. It is therefore contended that the petitioners do not have any right, title, interest or possession over any portion of the subject land and that the same is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 3 has also contended that apart from the fact that the petitioners have suppressed the material fact and document in relation to the earlier proceedings, the said proceedings are sufficient to indicate that the present petition is liable to be dismissed; the said proceedings cannot be made the basis for the petitioners to re-agitate all their contentions which are barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata. The petition is also barred by inordinate delay and latches and the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law and this Court. It is further contended that the said Act of 2013 is not applicable to acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA and at any rate, none of the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 are applicable to the subject land and/or the subject acquisition proceedings. The subject land was handed over to the 3rd respondent - Society on 25.10.2003 and the society have allotted and hold the sites which is formed in the subject land in favour of its members. It is therefore contended that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The respondents 5 to 9 who are allottees of sites from 3rd respondent - society have also filed their statement of objections and have contested the petition by denying the various contentions and claim put forth by the petitioner. Even these respondents have reiterated the various averments made by 3rd respondent - society in the statement of objections. After referring to all the earlier round of litigations, these respondents submit that apart from the fact that Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 was not applicable, it is contended that the petitioners are guilty of abuse of process of law and court and the petitioners, in particular petitioners 2 to 9 do not have locus standi to file the present petition. It is also contended that paragraph-17 of the statement of objections that the impugned notifications have been upheld by this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court in the proceedings instituted by one Smt. Nanjamma and on this ground also, the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material fact and indulging in repeated frivolous litigations which are liable to be dismissed. It is therefore contended by respondents 5 to 9 also that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 8. The material on record disclose that it is the specific contention urged by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 had acquired the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983 and formed the layout in the same and sold some of the sites in favour of petitioners 2 to 9 during the period 31.03.1995 to 04.08.2014. Meanwhile, the subject land was notified for acquisition vide preliminary notification dated 03.01.1985 and final notification dated 22.09.1986; since there were litigations including W.P. No. 292/1987 challenging the said notifications till the same were disposed of on 11.10.1993, the award was passed on 14.09.1995, pursuant to which, possession was taken by the SLAO on 05.02.2002 followed by a notification dated 13.06.2002 issued under Section 16(2) of the LA Act; thereafter, the subject land was handed over to the possession of 3rd Respondent - Society on 25.10.2003, pursuant to which, sites have been sold/allotted in favour of its members including respondents 5 to 9. It is therefore clear that petitioners 2 to 9 herein claimed to be the purchasers of portions of the subject land after issuance of preliminary and final notifications dated 03.01.1985 and 22.09.1986 respectively; It follows there from that petitioners 2 to 9 being subsequent purchasers do not have locus standi to challenge the preliminary and final notifications, which were undisputedly issued prior to them purchasing their respective portions as stated supra and consequently, the claim and contention of petitioners 2 to 9 is not maintainable and liable to be rejected, since the said sale deeds in favour of petitioners 2 to 9 after issuance of the aforesaid notifications are null and void as held by the Apex Court in the case of Shivkumar & another vs. Union of India & others - (2019) 10 SCC 229 . 9. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that possession of the subject land was not taken by the respondents 1 to 4 who had also not deposited/paid the award amount and consequently, since the twin/two-fold requirement contemplated in Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 had not been satisfied, the entire acquisition proceedings should lapse. This contention urged by the petitioners regarding lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013, it is clearly misconceived and devoid of merit in view of the well settled position of law that the said Act of 2013, in particular, Section 24(2) is not applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of (i) L. Rama Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & Others - W.A. No. 1415/2016 Dated 01.12.2020; (ii) BDA & Another vs. Vishwanatha Reddy & Others - W.A. No. 9476/2016 Dated 02.03.2021 and (iii) BDA vs. L. Chandrashekar - W.A. No. 946/2016 Dated 30.06.2021. 10. Under these circumstances, it is clear that since Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 is not applicable to the acquisition of the subject land under the BDA Act, the primary/main contention/ground of attack to the impugned notifications is clearly devoid of merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 11. 10. Under these circumstances, it is clear that since Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 is not applicable to the acquisition of the subject land under the BDA Act, the primary/main contention/ground of attack to the impugned notifications is clearly devoid of merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 11. The material on record also discloses that the award amount was deposited and possession of the subject land was taken over by the BDA and handed over to the 3rd respondent No. 3 - society, who has in turn allotted/sold the same in favour of its members/allottees, who are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Even in the earlier rounds of litigation instituted by petitioner No. 1, this Court has recorded its findings that the petitioner No. 1 was not in possession or enjoyment of the subject land and that the BDA and the society are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Viewed from this angle also, the contention urged by the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of subject land and that they are entitled to challenge the notifications is clearly baseless, devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. 12. The material on record also indicates that petitioner No. 1 herein is repeatedly indulging in litigation before this Court challenging the impugned preliminary and final notification. The details of the said cases, wherein petitioner had challenged the impugned notifications are as under:- (a) W.P. No. 292/1987 dismissed on 11.10.1993; (b) W.P. No. 12784/2002 dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 24.06.2002 reserving liberty in favour of petitioner No. 1 to approach the State Government for de-notification; this conduct of petitioner No. 1 also indicates that he estopped from challenging the impugned notifications. (c) W.P. No. 12758/2008 dismissed on 14.06.2011; review petition in R.P. No. 470/2011 dismissed on 09.12.2011; writ appeal in W.A. No. 56/2012 dismissed on 10.09.2013; SLP No. 702/2014 dismissed by the Apex Court on 04.11.2015. (d) W.P. No. 23389/2011 dismissed by this Court on 15.06.2012; writ appeal in W.A. No. 1993/2013 also dismissed on 15.06.2016; 13. (c) W.P. No. 12758/2008 dismissed on 14.06.2011; review petition in R.P. No. 470/2011 dismissed on 09.12.2011; writ appeal in W.A. No. 56/2012 dismissed on 10.09.2013; SLP No. 702/2014 dismissed by the Apex Court on 04.11.2015. (d) W.P. No. 23389/2011 dismissed by this Court on 15.06.2012; writ appeal in W.A. No. 1993/2013 also dismissed on 15.06.2016; 13. The aforesaid undisputed earlier rounds of litigation clearly indicate that petitioner No. 1's challenge to the impugned notifications was rejected by this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court on multiple occasion; all grounds and contentions urged by the 1st petitioner for the purpose of challenging the impugned notifications have been negatived; findings have been recorded that possession of the subject land have been taken over by the BDA and handed over to the 3rd respondent - society; petitioner No. 1 accepted the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned notifications and requested this Court to dismiss W.P. No. 12784/2002 with liberty to approach the State Government for de-notification. The aforesaid facts and circumstances and earlier round of litigation as well as the conduct of petitioner No. 1 clearly establishes that he is guilty of abuse of process of court and law, which has been recorded and highlighted on more than one occasion by this Court. This Court which has categorically held that the tendency of the petitioner No. 1 in filing the repeated writ petitions on one pretext or the other should be nipped in the bud. 14. The earlier rounds of litigations and conduct of petitioner No. 1 in requesting this Court reserving liberty in his favour to approach the State Government for de-notification of the subject land is sufficient to establish that all the claims and contentions put forth in the present petition are barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata as well as by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver. It is also relevant to state that all details and documents in relation to the earlier rounds of litigation have been deliberately and intentionally suppressed by the petitioners, in particular, petitioner No. 1 in the present petition which is also a point to the fact that the petitioner No. 1 has not come to the Court with clean hands. Under these circumstances, none of the grounds urged in the present petition merit any consideration and the same are liable to be rejected. 15. Under these circumstances, none of the grounds urged in the present petition merit any consideration and the same are liable to be rejected. 15. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner No. 1 that the earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 12758/2008 was filed by Smt. Prabhavati B. Chandapur fraudulently claiming to be his GPA Holder and consequently, any order made in the said litigation right up to the Apex Court are not binding upon petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it is relevant to state that even this contention have been negatived by this Court in W.P. No. 23389/2011. So also, the appeal in W.A. No. 1993/2013 was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.06.2015 on the basis of a submission of the learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 that he would obtain a declaration in the civil court about his identity. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2016 in order to contend that subsequently, petitioner No. 1 obtained a declaration before the civil court regarding his identity on 22.09.2018 in O.S. No. 622/2017, neither the said judgment and decree nor the circumstances urged by the petitioner No. 1 can have the effect of nullifying the orders passed against the petitioner No. 1 in the earlier rounds of litigation, which have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon him. In fact, the contention that liberty was reserved by this Court in W.A. No. 1993/2013, is wholly misconceived; a perusal of the said order, will indicate that all that this Court have done is to place on record the prayers/requests made by the learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 and has proceeded to dismiss the writ appeal as withdrawn. 16. A perusal of the said order makes it amply clear that the same cannot be treated or conclude as having reserved any liberty in favour of petitioner No. 1 and consequently, the said order in W.A. No. 1993/2013 cannot be relied upon by petitioner No. 1 in support of his case. In this context, it is necessary to state that despite repeatedly and unsuccessfully challenging the impugned notification, petitioner No. 1 is attempting to circumvent all the earlier orders passed against him with mala fide intention and ulterior motive which cannot be countenanced by this Court in the present petition. In this context, it is necessary to state that despite repeatedly and unsuccessfully challenging the impugned notification, petitioner No. 1 is attempting to circumvent all the earlier orders passed against him with mala fide intention and ulterior motive which cannot be countenanced by this Court in the present petition. Under these circumstances, even this contention urged by the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the material on record obtaining in the instant case, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.