ORDER : The above writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) To declare that the act of respondent in taking possession of the petition schedule property without paying compensation to the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) To grant declaration that entire acquisition proceedings in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas bearing Block No.9 Re.Sy.No.4 of Jakkur plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (petition schedule property) is illegal and void. (iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the petition schedule property and that acquisition purportedly taken by the respondent is illegal. 2. Case of the petitioner is that one K.Rangappa was allotted 5 acres of land in Block No.9 in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk on 15.05.1957. That the said K.Rangappa had sold southern half portion of said land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas to one Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa in terms of deed of sale dated 04.06.1959. That the said K.Rangappa repurchased the said 2 acres 20 guntas from said Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa in terms of deed of sale dated 18.02.1980. That the mother of the petitioner herein namely, Smt.Saroj Gupta, purchased said 2 acres 20 guntas from said Sri.K.Rangappa on 01.03.1982. The said land is described in the petition and referred to as petition schedule property. That the name of mother of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the petition schedule property in the year 1986-87 and property tax has been paid thereon. 2.1. That northern half portion of 2 acres 20 guntas owned by Sri.K.Rangappa was sold to Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa in terms of deed of sale dated 22.03.1961 which was again repurchased by said K.Rangappa on 19.10.1967. K.Rangappa sold the said property to one Sri.Choodappa under deed of sale dated 20.10.1967. Said Sri.Choodappa further sold said northern half of 2 acres 20 guntas in favour of one Sri.Nagesh Pai under deed of sale dated 30.05.1969. The said Nagesh Pai in turn sold the said land to one Savitha Pai under deed of sale dated 17.07.1986. 2.2. That there was a proposal for acquisition of about 19 acres of land in Sy.No.4, Block No.10 by the Government for the benefit of respondent No.4-University of Agricultural Sciences, Hebbal, Bengaluru in terms of a Final Notification dated 14.11.1971. That an award was passed on 27.08.1974. 2.2. That there was a proposal for acquisition of about 19 acres of land in Sy.No.4, Block No.10 by the Government for the benefit of respondent No.4-University of Agricultural Sciences, Hebbal, Bengaluru in terms of a Final Notification dated 14.11.1971. That an award was passed on 27.08.1974. A second acquisition was made by way of a final notification dated 20.02.1978 and award in this regard was passed on 18.01.1980. That the Final Notification did not bear either the name of the petitioner or any of his predecessor in title. Though a notice was served by the respondent No.3 -Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16.03.1978 to the owners of the land sought to be acquired, the said notice did not contain either the name of the petitioner or his predecessor in title. However, name of Sri.K.Rangappa, the predecessor in title of the petitioner appeared for the first time in the award dated 18.01.1980 as `Anubhavadar' along with other names namely B.M.Narayanappa, Sriharsha, Doddamuniyappa, Beerappa and Dodda Doddamma as Kathedars. That name of said K.Rangappa was also reflected as `Anubhavadar' in the map/sketch prepared on 14.11.1979 by the respondent No.3. That said entries were made based on the statements given by the locals and that the respondent No.3 did not conduct any inspection as required under law. That since K.Rangappa was not the owner of the property between the years 1959-60 and 1980 his name could not have been reflected as `Anubhavadar' in respect of the petition schedule property. 2.3. That the mother of the petitioner having purchased the petition schedule property from Sri.K.Rangappa on 01.03.1982 had filed a suit against the respondent No.2 in O.S.No.10660/1993 on the file of City Civil Court, Mayohall for relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 19.09.1998 on the ground that the property was not identifiable due to southern boundary having undergone a change over a period of time. A regular first appeal in RFA No.42/1999 had been filed and the same was withdrawn on 13.08.2001 within an intention of filing a suit for declaration of title and possession. Accordingly, suit in O.S.No.2162/2002 was filed before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru which was decreed on 13.04.2010. Respondent No.2 filed appeal in RFA No.1218/2010 before this Court which was dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010 passed in O.S.No.2162/2002. Accordingly, suit in O.S.No.2162/2002 was filed before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru which was decreed on 13.04.2010. Respondent No.2 filed appeal in RFA No.1218/2010 before this Court which was dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010 passed in O.S.No.2162/2002. Respondent No.2 preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.36751/2014 later numbered as Civil Appeal No.10728/2017 which was allowed by the Apex Court on 21.08.2017 on the ground that fresh suit was not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of CPC. A Review Petition was filed against the said order which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.11.2017. That during the trial of the aforesaid suits the Assistant Engineer of the respondent No.2 who was examined as DW-1 has admitted that there is no mention of the name of the petitioner or his predecessor in title in the notification dated 20.02.1978 in respect of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.4. That he has also admitted that the property claimed by the petitioner is different from the property of the respondent No.2. That despite petitioner filing applications seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 since the year 2018 no information has been furnished. An appeal filed in this regard is still pending consideration. 2.4. That an extent of 1 acre 36 guntas of land of the respondent No.2 in Re.Sy.No.4 has been acquired by respondent No.4-National Highway Authority of India and the compensation has been received by respondent No.2 during the years 2009-10, 2012-13. 2.5. That the entire acquisition of the petition schedule property being violative of Article 14 and Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India as the same being opposed to the process known to law the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Respondent No.2 filed statement of objections denying the petition averments contending inter alia that the petitioner purported to have purchased the petition schedule property long after issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of LA Act, 1894 and that the present petition has been filed after lapse of more than 4 decades. That the petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. That once the notification is issued all subsequent transaction become null and void by operation of law. That the petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. That once the notification is issued all subsequent transaction become null and void by operation of law. That the present petition has been filed as the mother of the petitioner having failed in two rounds of civil litigation, decision of which have attained finality. That as on the date of the notification the names of the person which were reflected in the revenue records were notified as kathedars and Anubhavadars and since the mother of the petitioner purchased the schedule property subsequent to the notification her name could not be reflected in the notification. 3.1. The respondent No.2-University though constituted under the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1961 had started from the experimental stage during the year 1899 and has developed over a period of time into the present University. The Government of Karnataka acquired lands from the year 19651982 under different notifications depending upon the requirements of the land for expansion of the agricultural activities for the benefits of students and farmers community from time to time. 3.2. That the land bearing Sy.No.4 at Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli consists of vast extent and has been assigned with ten block numbers by Revenue Department. As per the survey records block No. 10 which comes under southern side adjacent to Byataranayapura village measures 20 acres and block No.9 consists of 5 acres which comes under northern side of block No.10. The northern portion of the property belonging to Sri.K.Rangappa was sold in favour of Chowdappa on 20.10.1967 who in turn sold it in favour of Sri. Nagesh Pai on 13.05.1969. That the said Nagesh Pai in turn sold the same in favour of Smt. Savitha Pai under deed of sale dated 17.07.1986. That in the schedule given in the said deed of sale, there is a clear mention that on the south by-"Land of GKVK". Thus, it is clear that no bit of land was available for sale in favour of predecessor in title of petitioner by the said K.Rangappa as claimed by the petitioner. 3.3. That in the first acquisition proceedings dated 14.11.1971, 19 acres of land was notified out of 20 acres in Sy.No.4, Block No.10. The declaration of the Section 6(1) of the LA Act, 1894 was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 02.12.1971. 3.3. That in the first acquisition proceedings dated 14.11.1971, 19 acres of land was notified out of 20 acres in Sy.No.4, Block No.10. The declaration of the Section 6(1) of the LA Act, 1894 was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 02.12.1971. The names of the kathedars and Anubavadhars as per the revenue records notified are, Sri. B.Kalappa, Smt. Dodda Doddamma, Sri. Maarappa, Sri. B.M.Narayanappa, Sri. Dodda Muniyappa and Sri. Muniraj. The acquisition of said 19 acres of land out of 20 acres has been demarcated in the joint measurement sketch prepared by the SLAO and survey department. Award has been passed by the SLAO on 27.08.1974. Respondent No.2-University has also deposited compensation with the SLAO. The Government took possession and issued notifications under Section 16(2) of the LA Act, 1984 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 18.05.1978 and the same has been handed over the respondent No.2-University. 3.4. That by another notification dated 25.1.1977 issued under Section 4(1) of LA Act, 1894 an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.4 at Jakkur Plantation was notified. The names of the kathedars and Anubavadars shown in the said notifications are, Sri. B.M.Narayanappa, Sri. H.Harsha, Sri. Beerappa and Smt. Dodda Doddamma. That in the said notification the southern side of the boundaries mentioned as the land belonging to respondent No.2-University. That a sketch was prepared to an extent of 4 acres of land. The land acquisition officer has issued a declaration under Section 6(1) of LA Act, 1894 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 20.02.1978. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued to the kathedars and 'Anubavadars' and after obtaining the survey report dated 14.11.1979 award dated 18.01.1980 was passed. As per the report of the surveyor and the sketch prepared the names of the kathedars and 'Anubavadars' mentioned are; (1) Name and address not known to an extent of 2 guntas. (2) Sri.B.Sheshagiri rao measuring 24 guntas. (3) Sri. K.Rangappa, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. (4) Smt. Dodda Doddamma and B.M.Narayanappa 3.5. That Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, 1894 in favour of kathedars and 'Anubavadars' and deposited the award amount before the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru on 27.06.1986. That mahazar has been drawn by SLAO on 30.05.1985 in the presence of the villagers and handed over the possession to the respondent No.2-University. 3.6. That Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, 1894 in favour of kathedars and 'Anubavadars' and deposited the award amount before the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru on 27.06.1986. That mahazar has been drawn by SLAO on 30.05.1985 in the presence of the villagers and handed over the possession to the respondent No.2-University. 3.6. That the petitioner has purchased the acquired land which is unidentifiable. The description and the boundaries in the sale deed are contrary to the acquisition records. That the petitioner is not at all the owner of the property as on the date of the notification. That the deeds of sale obtained by the mother of the petitioner are void and unenforceable. The petitioner cannot seek any relief on the basis of said documents. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing along with Sri. Yeshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submitted that; (a) That the perusal of the notification in question would reveal that neither the name of Sri.K.Rangappa nor his purchasers namely, Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa, so also of the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner were shown in the notification. (b) That in view of the provision of Article 300A of the Constitution of India no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. (c) That in the instant case names of the owners of the land has not been shown either in the preliminary notification or in the final notification. There is no notice at all in the eye of law to the owners of the land regarding acquisition. As such, the entire acquisition proceeding being one without notice is illegal and unsustainable. Thus, the entire acquisition process is vitiated. (d) the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short Act, 2013) have to be strictly followed, failing which the entire acquisition would be rendered null and void. (e) That no possession of the land has been taken in the manner known to law and no award has been passed. (e) That no possession of the land has been taken in the manner known to law and no award has been passed. That in view of admission by the Assistant Engineer of respondent No.2-University with regard to identity of the property and the discrepancies in mentioning the survey numbers, the claim by the respondent No.2-University is not sustainable. (f) that the Trial court and this Court in their judgments rendered in the suits filed by the mother of the petitioner have categorically held that the petition schedule property has not been acquired and no records were produced to show the same. That though the name of K.Rangappa had been shown in the award dated 18.01.1980 he was not the owner of the land at that time and his name was not reflected in the revenue records. (g) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner rely upon the following judgments; (1) STATE OF MYSORE VS. ABDUL RAZAK SAHIB reported in AIR 1973 SC 2361 . (2) LALRIVELGA (DEAD) THROUGH LR'S AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2011 SC 3389 . (3) D.B. BASNETT (DEAD) THROUGH LR'S VS. COLLECTOR EAST DISTRICT GANGOK, SIKKIM AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 4 SCC 572 . (4) STATE OF HARYANA VS. MUKESH KUMAR reported in (2011) 10 SCC404. (5) TUKARAM KANA JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. MAHARASTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 . 5. Sri. Yogesh D.Naik, learned AGA for the respondents 1 and 3-State and SLAO, referring to award dated 18.01.1980 produced at Annexure-H4 of the writ petition submitted that name of Sri.K.Rangappa has been reflected along with one Sri.B.Sheshagiri Rao, Sri.Dodda Muniyappa, Smt.Dodda Doddamma, Sri.Beerappa and Sri.B.M.Naranayappa in respect of 3 acres 23 guntas of land and award has been passed in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in favour of K.Rangappa. (b) Referring to the judgment/order dated 12.01.2021 passed in W.A.No.3745/2016 and the connected matters he submitted that subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition. (c) That the present petition filed after lapse of 4 decades, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and on this point he refers to the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of; (1) BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MOTHILAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 . (2) STATE OF MAHARASTHRA VS. MOTHILAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 . (2) STATE OF MAHARASTHRA VS. DIGAMBAR reported in 1995 (4) SCC 683 . (3) STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER VS, MAMATHA MOHANTHE reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . (4) CHAIRMAN /MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITD AND OTHERS VS. RAMA GOPAL reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225 . and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Sri. M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-University submitted ; (a) that in the deeds of sale dated 04.06.1959 and dated 23.03.1961 executed by K.Rangappa in favour of Sri.Puttaiah no survey number is mentioned and the village referred to there is Allalasandra Plantation. The boundaries given in the said deeds of sale do not tally with the existence of the property. (b) that in the notifications names of kathedars and 'Anubavadars' as existed in the revenue records were shown. (c) that the award dated 18.01.1980 was passed by the SLAO after issuing notice to all kathedars and 'Anubavadars' since in the said proceedings name of the K.Rangappa was found to be in possession of 1 acres 20 guntas of land, award has been passed in his name in respect of the said land. (d) that on 13.05.1985 SLAO took possession of the land and handed over the same to the respondent No.2-University by drawing mahazar in the presence of the villagers and the award amount has been deposited before the City Civil Court on 26.07.1986. (e) That in the judgment passed in the suit in O.S.No.10660/1993 at para 26 and 27 that there is a clear recording that an extent of 4 acres of land was acquired in terms of notification dated 09.03.1978 as per Ex.P.18. That the regular first appeal in RFA No.42/1999 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 13.02.2021 without seeking any liberty. (f) That the subsequent suit for declaration and possession in O.S.No.2162/2002 was only against the respondent-University without making the State, SLAO or the vendors of the petitioners as a parties. That though the said suit was decreed on 13.04.2010 and Regular first appeal in RFA No.1218/2010 filed by the respondent No.2-university was dismissed on 06.08.2013, in the appeal filed before the Apex Court by the respondent No.2-University the said judgment and decree has been set aside by clearly recording the finding that the petition schedule land has been acquired in favour respondent No.2-University. That the review petition filed by the petitioner were also dismissed. (g) That the present petition has been filed after lapse of 45 years. That during the pendency of the present writ petition this Court had directed the Deputy Director of Land Records to conduct a joint inspection and survey by order dated 30.07.2021. The said survey was conducted on 12.10.2021 and a detailed report indicating the schedule land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas out of 4 acres coming within the acquired land for the respondent No.2-Univeristy and an extent of 1 acres being an unauthorized occupation of one Sri. Nagesh Pai. (h) that on 09.11.2021 respondent -State Government had filed a memo along with report, mahazar and survey sketch indicating that earlier first acquisition dated 04.11.1971 to an extent of 19 acres and the second acquisition dated 20.02.1978 was to an extent of 4 acres. That on the objection filed by the petitioner with regard to the demarcation, the respondent-State Government filed a memo along with coloured sketch indicating the first acquisition in red colour and second acquisition in the blue colour the land purchased by Nagesh Pai in the yellow and the land encroached upon by Nagesh Pai measuring 1 acre in orange colour. It also indicated extent of land acquired by the National Highways Authority measuring 1 acre 31 guntas marked in red dotted lines. 7. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments; (1) SMT. SNEH PRABHA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1996 SC 540 . (2) AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1996 SC 2677 . (3) MEERA SAHNI VS. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177 . (4) SWAIKA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2008) 4 SCC 695 . (5) M. NAGABHUSHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 . (6) URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. BHERU LAL AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 7 SCC 712 . (7) LARSCN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARATH AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 4 SCC 387 . (8) SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1998) 4 SCC 409 . Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. BHERU LAL AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 7 SCC 712 . (7) LARSCN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARATH AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 4 SCC 387 . (8) SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1998) 4 SCC 409 . Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. From the facts narrated in the writ petition as noted hereinabove it is clear that the petitioner herein is claiming his rights and reliefs in respect of the petition schedule property on the premise of he being the son of late Smt.Saroja Gupta, wife of Late Sri.Jayaprakash Gupta, who is stated to have purchased the petition schedule property in terms of deed of sale dated 01.03.1982 as per Annexure-A from Sri.K.Rangappa. That said Sri. K.Rangappa had apparently been granted 5 acres of land in Block No.9 of Sy.No.4 on 15.05.1957. That the said Sri.K.Rangappa had sold southern portion measuring 2 acres 20 guntas out of said 5 acres to certain Puttaiah and Mariyappa on 04.06.1959 and had repurchased the same from them on 18.02.1980. That the said K.Rangappa had sold northern portion of 2 acres 20 guntas out of said 5 acres in favour of said Puttaiah and Mariyappa on 22.03.1961 which was subsequently repurchased by said K.Rangappa on 19.10.1967 and that he sold the same to one Choodappa on 20.10.1967 and that the said Choodappa had sold the same to one Sri.Nagesh Pai on 30.05.1969 who in turn in sold the same to Smt.Savitha Pai on 17.07.1986. 10. Thus, it is clear that on the relevant dates when the subject notifications were issued namely on 14.11.1971 as per Annexure-H and on 20.02.1978 as per Annexure-H-2 respectively, K.Rangappa was not the owner of the subject land as the same had been purchased by Sri.Puttaiah and Sri.Mariyappa. Perusal of the notifications at Annexure-H and H-2 reveal that land in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur measuring 19 acres was sought to be acquired in terms of Annexure-H notification dated 04.11.1971. Name of khathedar shown there is that of Lingappa. Names of 'Anubhavadar' shown as Sryuths. Bachappa, Hanumanthappa, Narayannappa, Chikkamuniyappa and Doddamuniyappa. Notification at Annexure-H-2 dated 20.02.1978 refers to 4 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur plantation. Names of the khathedar shown therein are B.M.Narayanappa, Doddmuniyappa, Beerappa and Dodda Doddamma. Names of the 'Anubhavadar' shown therein are Sri.B.M.Narayanappa, H.Harsha, Sri.Beerappa and Smt.Dodda Doddamma. Names of 'Anubhavadar' shown as Sryuths. Bachappa, Hanumanthappa, Narayannappa, Chikkamuniyappa and Doddamuniyappa. Notification at Annexure-H-2 dated 20.02.1978 refers to 4 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur plantation. Names of the khathedar shown therein are B.M.Narayanappa, Doddmuniyappa, Beerappa and Dodda Doddamma. Names of the 'Anubhavadar' shown therein are Sri.B.M.Narayanappa, H.Harsha, Sri.Beerappa and Smt.Dodda Doddamma. However, in the award proceedings in LAC No.3192/1977-78 produced at Annexure-H4 name of Sri.K.Rangappa is shown to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The award passed thereunder has been shown to have deposited in the Civil Court. 11. Perusal of RTC records produced at Annexure-G series would reveal that for the years 1966-67 and 1970-71 and for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 names of Sri.K.Rangappa, Sri.Mariyappa, Sri.Chowdappa and Sri.Nagesh Pai have been reflected. Similarly, for the years 1986-87, 1987-88 to 1992-93 names of the said persons have been reflected. RTC's for the subsequent period reflected names of other persons including name of mother of the petitioner. 12. Relevant at this juncture also to refer to mutation register extract produced at Annexure-G15 wherein there is a reference to the notification dated 04.11.1971 and the LAC proceedings 1986/72=73 for the year of 1973 and in the said mutation extract there is a reference to names of Sri.B.Kaalappa, Sri.B.M.Narayanappa, Sri.Doddamuniyappa, Sri.Muniraj, Sri. Beerappa and Smt. Dodda Doddamma. The petitioner has disputed the details of the land and the survey numbers/Hissa numbers reflected in the said documents. 13. Notwithstanding the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, an undisputed fact which emerges is that mother of the petitioner herein purchased the petition schedule property subsequent to issuance of notifications produced at Annexure-H and H2. In the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1998 passed in the suit in O.S.No.10660/1993 filed by the mother of the petitioner produced at Annexure-K, issue no.4 had been framed which reads as under; "4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit property has been lawfully acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the defendant and that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?". 14. On appreciation of evidence the Trial Court answered the said issue in affirmative and dismissed the suit. Whether the defendant proves that the suit property has been lawfully acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the defendant and that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?". 14. On appreciation of evidence the Trial Court answered the said issue in affirmative and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, though the mother of the petitioner filed a regular first appeal in RFA No.42/1999 and later withdrew the said appeal on 13.08.2001, thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.2162/2002 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction which was decreed by judgment decree dated 13.04.2010. An appeal filed by the respondent No.2-University in RFA No.1218/2010 was dismissed confirming the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010. A Civil Appeal filed by the respondent No.2-Univeristy before Apex Court was allowed on 21.08.2018 as per Annexure-L1. The Apex Court allowed the said appeal on the premise that earlier suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff was on the basis of the averments that land had been acquired for the purpose of University and that the said suit was dismissed on merits taking note of acquisition and that the regular appeal filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn on 13.08.2001 without seeking liberty to institute the fresh suit. As such the subsequent suit was not maintainable. A review filed against the said order of the Apex Court was also dismissed. 15. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli submitted that notwithstanding the findings in the suit regarding acquisition of petitions schedule land and dismissal of suit, the petitioner is entitled to seek constitutional remedy as there is no compliance to the provision of land acquisition Act. He relied up on the general citation on this point. 16. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court; that in addition to publication of notice in the Official Gazette publication in the newspaper is mandatory (STATE OF MYSORE VS. ABDUL RAZAK SAHIB reported in AIR 1973 SC 2361 ); that acquisition of land under assumption of issuance of notification cannot be sustained (LALRIVELGA (DEAD) THROUGH LR'S AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2011 SC 3389 ); that the right to property is both constitutional as well as human rights and can be deprived of only in the manner known to law (D.B. BASNETT (DEAD) THROUGH LR'S VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2011 SC 3389 ); that the right to property is both constitutional as well as human rights and can be deprived of only in the manner known to law (D.B. BASNETT (DEAD) THROUGH LR'S VS. COLLECTOR EAST DISTRICT GANGOK, SIKKIM AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 4 SCC 572 , STATE OF HARYANA VS. MUKESH KUMAR reported in (2011) 10 SCC404), TUKARAM KANA JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. MAHARASTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMETN CORPORATION AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 . 17. In the light of facts situation of the matter, issue that requires to be considered is; Whether the petitioner, being son of Smt. Saroj Gupta, who admittedly purchased the property subsequent to notifications for acquisition can set up title in himself and raise a challenge and seek reliefs as sought for in the petition?. 18. As already noted in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10660/1992 the Trial court has given its finding in the affirmative on the issue No.4 with regard to acquisition of petition schedule land for respondent No.2-University and its taking possession. In other words, the mother of the petitioner was put to notice about the acquisition, in the pleadings. In the subsequent suit in O.S.No.2162/2002 by Smt.Saroj Gupta for substantial relief for declaration and possession, it is specifically averred that the land has been notified by issuing preliminary and final notifications. A subtle challenge is made to the acquisition in the said suit by contending that names of the owners of the land were not reflected in the notifications. 19. Apex Court in the case of SMT. SNEHA PRABHA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1996 SC 540 at paragraphs 5, 7 and 9 has held as under; "5. Though at first blush, we were inclined to agree with the appellant but on a deeper probe, we find that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the Land Policy. It is settled law that any person who purchases land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose, and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose, and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries, etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, titles, and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances, and thereby, absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land, his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/ or to receive compensation for the land. In a recent judgment, this Court in Union of India v. Shri Shivkumar Bhargava and Ors. [1995] 1 SCR 3546 considered the controversy and held that a person who purchases land subsequent to the notification is not entitled to an alternative site. It is seen that the Land Policy expressly conferred that right only on that person whose land was acquired. In other words, the person must be the owner of the land on the date on which notification under Section 4(1) was published. By necessary implication, the subsequent purchaser was elbowed out from the policy and became disentitled to the benefit. In this case, though the appellant had applied within time to avail of the benefits of the Land Policy and she was asked to deposit the compensation received for the land acquired, the Trust was not in know of the fact that the appellant had purchased the land after the publication of Section 4 [1] notification. When the appellant sought for execution of the lease deed she was called upon to produce her title deed which, when produced, disclosed that she had purchased the land after Section 4 [1] notification was published. In other words, she fell into the main part of the general land policy and G.O. No.342 dated December 8, 1971. When the appellant sought for execution of the lease deed she was called upon to produce her title deed which, when produced, disclosed that she had purchased the land after Section 4 [1] notification was published. In other words, she fell into the main part of the general land policy and G.O. No.342 dated December 8, 1971. Thereby, there is no order passed in her favour to extend the benefits of the Land Policy nor was any agreement to lease the said land in her favour was entered into and registered although she purchased the land after the notification under Section 4 [1] was published. It would thus be clear that the appellant had not fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the G.O. No.1802 dated June 2, 1972. Considered from this perspective, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the Land Policy. The High Court rightly did not extend the benefits to the appellant. Hence our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is not warranted". 20. Similarly, in the case of MEERA SAHNI VS. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177 at para 17 and 18 and 20 has held as under; "17. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognized the aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 18. In U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., it was stated by this Court that: "3. 18. In U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., it was stated by this Court that: "3. ............Having regard to the facts of this case, we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High Court. It is well settled law that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published in the Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property....." 19. In Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (1996) 7 SCC 426 at 430 it is stated as under: "5. ......It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out and an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries, etc. Therefore, any alienation of the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, title and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder......" 20. The said proposition of law was also reiterated in the cases of Ajay Kishan Shinghal & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 10 SCC 721 and Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 11 SCC." 21. Division Bench of this court in its order dated 12.01.2021 passed in W.A.No.3745/2016 (LA-KIADB) and other connected matters wherein in a challenge to the notification for acquisition of land certain objections were raised by subsequent purchasers. Division Bench of this Court while declining to entertain the said challenge and dismissing the appeal at paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 has held as under; "39. We observe that in the above circumstances, the appellant-Developer and the subsequent purchasers of the house sites, had no right or locus standi to assail the acquisition notifications. Division Bench of this Court while declining to entertain the said challenge and dismissing the appeal at paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 has held as under; "39. We observe that in the above circumstances, the appellant-Developer and the subsequent purchasers of the house sites, had no right or locus standi to assail the acquisition notifications. This is on account of their omission to ascertain whether the land in questions had been notified or not prior to the purchase of the same. 40. In the absence of finding out, as to, whether, the land in question was a subject matter of acquisition or not and buying notified land, the alienee/purchaser does not get the right to assail the acquisition. This is because, the alienee enters the scene only after the land purchased is a subject matter of acquisition. The original khatedar may or may not have had the intention to assail the acquisition. If there is no intention to assail the acquisition process and he alienates the land notified for acquisition, the alienee would be entitled to only compensation for the acquired land. On the other hand, if the notified khatedar has challenged the acquisition and he also sells the land, he would lose his right to receive compensation as well as challenge the acquisition as he would have lost all right, title and interest in the land by alienating the same. Also, the purchaser who buys notified land has only the right to receive compensation in respect of the acquired land. This is because such a purchaser is not the notified khatedar and therefore is not entitled to challenge the acquisition as he takes the risk of buying the land notified for acquisition Thus, when the notified khatedar alienates the notified land and thus loses his right to challenge the acquisition of such land, the alienee of such land would not acquire any right to challenge the acquisition as he is not the notified khatedar or the occupier of the notified land at the time when the preliminary notification was issued. 41. Therefore, there is a bar to alienate the land notified for acquisition by issuance of preliminary notification, irrespective of the enactment under which it is issued. Hence, it is the duty of any buyer of land or other property to first ascertain if the same is a subject matter of acquisition or not. 41. Therefore, there is a bar to alienate the land notified for acquisition by issuance of preliminary notification, irrespective of the enactment under which it is issued. Hence, it is the duty of any buyer of land or other property to first ascertain if the same is a subject matter of acquisition or not. If any preliminary notification is already issued in respect of the land to be purchased, then any further transaction thereof would be subject to the final notification. If the final notification does not incorporate the land/other property to be purchased, then, the same could be transacted in any manner known to law. On the other hand, if the said land is a part of the final notification also, then the purchaser of the same subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification but before the issuance of the final notification does so at his own risk and subject to the final notification. If the land so purchased does not find mention in the final notification, the sale in his favour is without any impediment from the point of view of acquisition. On the other hand, if the land/property purchased subsequent to the issuance of the final notification finds a place in the final notification, the same would prevail over the sale transaction and the subsequent purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation on proving his title to the land. He does not have the right to challenge the acquisition as he is not the original khatedar who alone has the right to challenge the acquisition notification". 22. Thus, challenge by the petitioner as sought to be made out in the present petition claiming to be the successor in interest through Smt.Saroj Gupta the purchaser of the property subsequent to the notifications cannot be entertained. 23. As regards the issue of delay and laches the present petition is filed questioning the process of acquisition of the years 1971 and 1978 after over 45 years. No explanation of any nature of whatsoever is whispered in the writ petition except stating that applications were filed under the Right to information Act and no informations were provided by the respondent-authorities and that an appeal in this regard has also been filed. 24. No explanation of any nature of whatsoever is whispered in the writ petition except stating that applications were filed under the Right to information Act and no informations were provided by the respondent-authorities and that an appeal in this regard has also been filed. 24. In the facts situation of the matter, more particularly, when the suit filed by the mother of the petitioner in O.S.No.10660/1992 had been dismissed on the very issue of acquisition and taking over possession of land by the respondent No.2-University, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was awaiting the information to be furnished under the Right to Information Act. 25. Apex Court in the case of BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MOTHILAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 at paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 has held as under; "16. In our view, even if the objection of delay and laches had not been raised in the affidavits filed on behalf of BDA and the State Government, the High Court was duty-bound to take cognizance of the long time gap of nine years between the issue of declaration under Section 6(1) and filing of the writ petition, and declined relief to Respondent 1 on the ground that he was guilty of laches because the acquired land had been utilised to implementing the residential scheme and third-party rights had been created. The unexplained delay of about six years between the passing of award and of the writ was also sufficient for refusing to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition. 17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may D adversely affect the settled/crystallised nights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits. 18. In State of M. v. Bhalal Bhai the Constitution Bench considered the effect of delay in filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and held: 17. 18. In State of M. v. Bhalal Bhai the Constitution Bench considered the effect of delay in filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and held: 17. It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it….. It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus. 21. The learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Article 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable." 19. In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, this Court has consistently held that delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay. The Court has also held that the delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the public purpose". 26. Similarly, in the case of STATE OF MAHARASTHRA VS. DIGAMBAR reported in 1995 (4) SCC 683 at paragraph 15 has held as under; "15. The Court has also held that the delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the public purpose". 26. Similarly, in the case of STATE OF MAHARASTHRA VS. DIGAMBAR reported in 1995 (4) SCC 683 at paragraph 15 has held as under; "15. Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) and others similarly situated, it must be stated to their credit, even did not choose to address any arguments before us supporting the view of the High Court that a citizen when complains before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the violation of his legal right by the State, the High Court could grant relief to him without examining the question of laches or undue delay on his part in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for relief thereunder. What was contended on behalf of the respondent and persons a similarly situated against whom SLPS filed are not yet registered, was that the State Government when had not chosen to question some judgments of the High Court in writ petitions of the year 1987 whereunder certain ad hoc compensation had been granted on the allegation that their lands had been taken away for scarcity relief works by the agencies of the State in the year 1971-72 and further when a few SLPS filed in respect of some subsequent b judgments of the High Court in similar matters had been rejected in limine. by a two-Judge Bench of this Court, the State Government should not be allowed to pursue the present appeal or other SLPS filed by it in similar cases". 27. Thus, on the grounds of locus standi, delay and laches the petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained and the same requires to be dismissed and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. The assistance rendered by Mr.Siddiq Hussain Khan Shah, Law Clerk cum Research Assistant is placed on record.