JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the impugned notificationS dtd. 24/2/2005 and 1/3/2006 as the respondent-authorities have not notified before issuance of the aforementioned notifications. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioners are the owner in possession of 19 guntas of land out of 2.16 acres in Sy.No.138/2 of Arehalli- Guddadahalli village. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent-authorities have issued notification dtd. 22/2/2005 under Sec. 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), proposing for acquisition of land and the purpose for which the said notification was notified. It is also the case of the petitioners that notification dtd. 22/2/2005 (Annexure-C) was not issued/published in two Daily Newspapers having wide circulation in the said locality. That apart, it is urged that due personal notice was not served to the petitioners by the respondent-authorities. However, after issuance of the final notification, a notice dtd. 1/3/2006 was issued under Sec. 28(6) of the Act, directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the schedule property as per Notice dtd. 15/3/2006. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the Notifce dtd. 15/3/2006 in Writ Petition No.11204 of 2007, and the said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 30/7/2007 as per Annexure-F. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners had given representation dtd. 15/3/2006 to the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-G to release the petitioners property from acquisition. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent-Government has not considered the representation made by the petitioner seeking de- notification of the land and as such, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.18147 of 2007 seeking writ of mandamus to de-notify the land bearing Sy.No.138/2 of Arehalli-Guddadahalli village. The said writ petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 7/6/2010. Thereafter, the petitioners have presented this writ petition, challenging the impugned notification by the respondent authority. 3. I heard Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the parties and Sri P.V. Chandreshaker learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board and Sri K.R. Nityananda, learned AGA for the State. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners have presented this writ petition, challenging the impugned notification by the respondent authority. 3. I heard Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the parties and Sri P.V. Chandreshaker learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board and Sri K.R. Nityananda, learned AGA for the State. 4. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the proposed acquisition is for formation of industrial layout and if the industries are established, the same would cause health hazard to the villagers, as the subject land is situated just one kilometer away from the village and the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also residing in the schedule land. The learned Counsel has also produced photographs in B series. 5. Per contra, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches, since the petitioners were aware about the acquisition proceedings by approaching this Court in Writ Petition No.11204 of 2007 and in this regard, he referred to the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure and argued that the petitioners ought to have urged and challenged the impugned notification in Writ Petition No.11204 of 2007 itself and having not done so, the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition challenging the impugned notification. He also submitted that possession of land was taken on 19/6/2006 by the Government and thereafter, the land was transferred to respondent-Board on 1/7/2006 and pursuant to same, award came to be passed on 14/9/2011 and therefore, he contended that the petitioners cannot unsettle the settled things with regard to the acquisition proceedings after a gap of one and half decade. 6. Sri K.R. Nityananda, learned AGA relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANDA V. MOTILAL AGARWAL and others reported in (2011)5 SCC 394 and drew the attention of the Court to paragraphs 15 to 27 of the said judgment. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I bestowed my attention to the writ papers. It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the respondent-authorities as per issuance of preliminary notification dtd. 22/2/2005, followed by final notification dtd. 1/3/2006. The petitioners herein have filed writ petition No.11204 of 2007, seeking dissolution of the notice dtd. It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the respondent-authorities as per issuance of preliminary notification dtd. 22/2/2005, followed by final notification dtd. 1/3/2006. The petitioners herein have filed writ petition No.11204 of 2007, seeking dissolution of the notice dtd. 15/3/2006 issued by the respondent- Board. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not assailed the preliminary and final notifications issued by the respondent-Board. Paragraph 3 of the order dtd. 30/6/2007, reads thus: "3. The impugned notice is issued under Sec. 28(6) of the Act. The petitioners admittedly have not challenged the Acquisition proceedings inasmuch as the preliminary notification issued under Sec. 28(1) of the Act, and thus the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent for acquiring the said land has become final. It is only at the state of taking possession, when notice is issued as required under law, they appear to have filed, objections and now complaining that possession is being taken without giving them an opportunity to hear. The law does not contemplate filing of any objection in pursuance of a notice under Sec. 28(6) of the Act, nor any obligation on the authorities to hear the petitioners whose land is acquired, before taking possession. In that view, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed." Undisputably, the acquisition proceedings have not been questioned in the said writ petition. 8. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed writ petition No.18147 of 2007 and in the said writ petition, petitioners have sought for de-notifying the schedule land from the acquisition proceedings. It is also not disputed by the parties that the said writ petition has been dismissed. Taking into consideration the fact that two writ petitions were filed before this Court with respect to the subject matter by the petitioners, however, challenge was not made with regard to acquisition provision and in that view of the matter, as rightly contended by Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Boarrd that, provision contained under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the case on hand and therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed on the said ground only. Undusptuably, acquisition proceedings is of the year 2005 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2013, so also, the fact remains that the possession of the land was taken on 19/6/2006 and same was transferred to respondent- Board by the Government on 1/7/2006 and award came to be passed on 14/9/2011 and in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (supra), the petitioners are not entitled for relief in this writ petition in view of the inordinate delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings, despite knowing fully that the petitioners herein have earlier filed two writ petitions before this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board that the award amount is deposited before the Reference Court and same was registered as LAC No.7 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura. In that view of the matter, it is open for the petitioners to claim the award amount in accordance with law. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits.