JUDGMENT : 1. This intra court appeal has been filed against order dtd. 31/3/2016 by which writ petition preferred by respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the owners' for short) has been allowed and the proceeding initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority' for short) for acquisition of land in question under Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) have been quashed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that one late Sri.M.Krishnappa was the original owner of land bearing Sy.No. 225/1 measuring 2.25 acres of Banasawadi Village, K.R.Pura, Hobli, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for short). The authority issued a preliminary notification dated 03. 11.1977 under Sec. 17 of the Act for acquisition of the aforesaid land for Banasawadi Scheme between old madras Road and Banasawadi Road (hereinafter referred to as 'the OMBR Layout' for short). Thereafter, a final notification dtd. 13/11/1980 under Sec. 19 of the Act was issued. An award was passed on 6/10/1982 and the possession of the land in question was taken by preparing a panchanama on 22/10/1982. 3. The original owner of the land viz., M.Krishnappa filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No. 41625/1982, in which challenge was made to the proceeding for acquisition. On 25/7/1983, a notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued stating that the possession of the land in question has already been taken. The aforesaid writ petition filed by late M.Krishnappa was dismissed for non prosecution on 31/1/1982. 4. Thereafter, sons of M.Krishnappa viz., Sri.K.Muniraju and Sri.K.Srinivasa filed another writ petition on 16/2/1995 in which prayer for regularization of one of the house situate on the land in question was made. In the said writ petition, there was neither any mention of previous writ petition viz., W.P.No. 4751/1995 which was dismissed for non prosecution nor the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act were challenged. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dtd. 27/3/1997 and it was inter alia held that the petitioners of the said writ petition cannot seek regularization with regard to unauthorized structure on the land in question. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dtd. 27/3/1997 and it was inter alia held that the petitioners of the said writ petition cannot seek regularization with regard to unauthorized structure on the land in question. It was further held that petitioners in the said writ petition cannot, seek regularization in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 21 guntas, on the ground that there is a small unauthorized structure on the land in question. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 5. Thereafter, on 16/1/2016, sons of Late M.Krishnappa and his daughter in law after a period of 34 years from the date of passing of the award filed the writ petition viz., W.P.No. 916/2016. In the writ petition, a prayer was sought that preliminary notification dtd. 3/11/1977 and final notification dtd. 13/11/1980 issued under Sec. 17 and 19 of the Act respectively issued for formation of OMBR Layout have lapsed under Sec. 27 of the Act. The petitioner also sought a declaration that preliminary as well as final notifications dtd. 3/11/1977 and 13/11/1980 for formation of OMBR Layout have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short). The learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 31/3/2016 inter alia held that physical possession of the land in question has not been taken. Therefore, the rigor of Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act would apply and the proceeding for acquisition insofar as it pertains to land held by the owners was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, the Authority has filed this appeal. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that Sec. 24(2) of 2013 Act does not apply to the proceeding initiated under the Act. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the writ petition suffered from inordinate delay and laches. It is also submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the owners had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed the factum of filing of the earlier writ petitions. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the writ petition suffered from inordinate delay and laches. It is also submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the owners had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed the factum of filing of the earlier writ petitions. It is also pointed out that essential ingredients to attract the applicability of Sec. 27 of the Act were not pleaded and in any case, the scheme cannot lapse to the extent of land held by the owners only. It is argued that even if the scheme lapses, the acquisition may not lapse. It is further submitted that two structures were raised on the land in question subsequently. It is also argued that the owners if so advised, may approach the Authority for allotment of the sites on which structures are situate and in case such an application is made, the authority shall decide the same under Sec. 38-D of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY VS. MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS', (2020) 8 SCC 129 , ' BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER', (2018) 9 SCC 122 , BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY VS. DR.H.S.HANUMANTHAPPA', ILR 1996 KAR 642, 'KRISHNAMURTHY VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY', ILR 1996 KAR 1258, 's ULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE VS. PUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND OTHERS', (2010) 8 SCC 467 , 'NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES VS. JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS', (2003) 1 SCC 335 , 'BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. VS. SMT.VANAJA MUNIREDDY AND OTHERS', W.A.NO. 3487/2016, 'K.JAYARAM & ORS. VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.', CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7550- 7553/2021, 's MT.K.S.MENAKSHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', W.A.NO. 1274/2018,'FULJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB', (2010) 11 SCC 455 , 'BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.', CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7661-7663/2018, 'BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANDA VS. MOTI LAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS', (2011) 5 SCC 394 , 'BEHARI KUNJ SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS', (2008) 12 SCC 306 . 7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the owners has submitted that in the statement of objections, the Authority has not pleaded that the owners have suppressed any material fact. It is also submitted that suppression must be of material fact. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS', (2008) 12 SCC 306 . 7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the owners has submitted that in the statement of objections, the Authority has not pleaded that the owners have suppressed any material fact. It is also submitted that suppression must be of material fact. It is contended that orders passed in the earlier writ petition are not relevant. While inviting the attention of this court to the mahazar drawn on 22/10/1982, it is contended that names and addresses of the witnesses have not been mentioned therein and in fact, possession of the land in question has not been taken from the owners and they are in possession of the land in question for past 35 years. It is also pointed out that layout has not been formed as is evident from the information dtd. 18/9/2015 supplied to the owners under the Right to Information Act . Learned Senior counsel has referred to the photographs to contend that houses are situate on the land in question. It is also stated that 35 acres of land belonging to the owners has been acquired. It is urged that notification issued under Sec. 16(2) of the 1984 Act is not conclusive and the presumption attached to the notification issued under Sec. 16(2) of the Act is a rebuttable presumption. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'MRS.POORNIMA GIRISH VS. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS'., ILR 2011 KAR 575, ' THE COMMISSIONER AND ANR. VS. MRS.POORNIMA GIRISH AND ANR.', W.A.NO. 4824/2010, SRI.R.ADIKESAVULU NAIDU AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KAR. BY ITS SECRETARY, U.D.D. AND OTHERS', ILR 2011 KAR 3657, P.K.KALBURQI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (2005) 12 SCC 489 , (2005) 12 SCC 489 , MUNIYAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', 2007(5) KAR.L.J. 11 , 'BALWANT NARAYAN BHAGDE VS. M.D.BHAGWAT AND OTHERS', (1976) 1 SCC 700 , 'BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANDA VS.MOTI LAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS', (2011) 5 SCC 394 , 'RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS', (2012) 1 SCC 792 , 'DR.A.PARTHASARTHY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA , BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS', ILR 2017 KAR 3489, 's .J.S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS', (2004) 7 SCC 166 . 8. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS', (2012) 1 SCC 792 , 'DR.A.PARTHASARTHY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA , BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS', ILR 2017 KAR 3489, 's .J.S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS', (2004) 7 SCC 166 . 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that when there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all the steps are taken in the acquisition proceedings, which have become final, the court should be loath to quash the notifications. It has further been held that though this court has discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the said powers have to be exercised taking into account all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. It has further been held that when the award has been passed and the possession is taken the court should not exercise its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [SEE: 'MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD & ORS.', (1996) 11 SCC 501 , 'MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. SHAH HYDER BEIG & ORS.', (2000) 2 SCC 48 , 's WAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', AIR 2008 SC 1494 AND 'JASVEER SIGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.', (2017) 6 SCC 787 . 9. In the instant case, preliminary notification as well as final notification dtd. 3/11/1977 and 13/11/1980 under Sec. 17 and Sec. 19 of the Act were issued. Thereafter, an award was passed on 6/10/1982. The writ petition filed by the father of the owners viz., W.P.No. 41625/1982 was dismissed for non prosecution on 31/1/1982. The owners have filed this petition after a period of 34 years, for which no explanation has been offered. However, learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The writ petition suffered from inordinate delay and laches and ought not to have been entertained on this ground alone. 10. The owners have filed this petition after a period of 34 years, for which no explanation has been offered. However, learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The writ petition suffered from inordinate delay and laches and ought not to have been entertained on this ground alone. 10. In the writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: (i) Issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to declare the preliminary notification No. BDA/SALAO/C3PR/301/77-78 dated, 3/11/1977, issued under Sub-Sec. (1) and (iii) of Sec. 17of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (in short BDA Act) vide Annexure-A and consequently the final notification No. HUD/35/MNJ/78 dtd. 13/11/1980, issued under Sec. 19(1) of the BDA Act, vide Annexure-B for the formation of the layout called 'Banasvadi Scheme between old Madras Road and Banasvadi Road' (OMBR Layout), as lapsed under Sec. 27 of BDA Act, in respect of petition schedule property or (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to declare the preliminary notification No. BDA/SALAO/C3PR/301/77-78 dtd. 3/11/1977, issued under sub Sec. (1) and (3) of Sec. 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (in short BDA Act) vide Annexure-A and consequently the final notification No. HUD/35/MNJ/78 dtd. 13/11/1980, issued under Sec. 19(1) of the BDA Act, vide Annexure-B for the formation of the layout called 'Banasvadi Scheme Between old Madras Road and Banasvadi Road' (OMBR Layout) as lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of petition schedule property. 11. So far as the issue with regard to applicability of Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the proceeding under the Act is concerned, the same is no longer res integra. A division bench of this court vide judgments dtd. 19/4/2021 and 21/6/2021 passed in writ appeal No. 1274/2018 and Writ Appeal No. 3487/2016 has held that the provision of Sec. 24(2) of the Act do not apply to the proceeding initiated under the Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the proceeding under the Act would lapse in view of Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be sustained. 12. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the proceeding under the Act would lapse in view of Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be sustained. 12. Now we may examine whether the proceeding initiated under Act has lapsed in view of Sec. 27 of the Act. A division bench of this court in 'KRISHNAMURTHY VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY', ILR 1996 KAR 1258 has held that a proceeding under Sec. 27 of the Act would lapse only if two conditions are satisfied viz., failure to execute the scheme by dereliction of statutory duties without any justification and substantial execution of the scheme depending upon the nature of the scheme. 13. In the instant case, in the writ petition following averments have been made: 18. The final notification has been issued in the year 1980, it was incumbent upon the respondent authority to have implemented the scheme within the period of 5 years from the final notification. In the instant case, the fact that the BDA has informed the petitioners vide endorsement dtd. 18/9/2015 that sites are not formed in respect of Sy.No. 225/1 of Banasvadi Villge i.e., petition schedule property, makes it clear that the scheme is not implemented insofar as petition schedule property is concerned as the same still remains in the physical possession of petitioners. Hence the rigour of Sec. 27 of BDA Act, along with Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair compensation Act would be attracted. Thus, it is evident that there is no pleading in the writ petition that there has been a dereliction of duty in implementing the scheme. In the absence of any such pleading, the finding with regard to applicability of Sec. 27 of the Act cannot be recorded. From the sketch available on record, it is evident that Authority has utilized the part of the land for construction of roads and has also constructed a Storm Water Drain (SWD). 14. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. From the photographs annexed to the petition, it appears that residential houses / tombs have been constructed on a part of the land. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the owners to approach the Authority under Sec. 38-D of the Act for allotment of sites. From the photographs annexed to the petition, it appears that residential houses / tombs have been constructed on a part of the land. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the owners to approach the Authority under Sec. 38-D of the Act for allotment of sites. Needless to state that in case, such an application is made, the Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law bearing in mind the fact that 35 acres of land belonging to the owners has been acquired. 15. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is disposed of.