JUDGMENT : P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J. The present appeals are filed by the Bangalore Development Authority [‘BDA’ for short] challenging the order dated 11.7.2014 passed in WP.No.32186/2010 and other connected matters, whereunder a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the notifications issued for acquisition of the lands for formation of a residential layout known as “The Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout”. 2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeals are that the acquisition proceedings by the BDA for acquiring the lands under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976[‘The Act’ for short]. Consequent to a resolution dated 3.9.2007 of the BDA, on 18.9.2007 it addressed a letter to the State Government with all the relevant particulars seeking its approval for the scheme. On 2.4.2008 the Government accorded approval and on 21.5.2008 a Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 17 of the Act proposing to acquire an extent of 4814 acres and 15 guntas of land. Vide resolution bearing No.340/09 dated 12.1.2010, the BDA furnished the details as noticed in the said resolution and sought approval for issuance of notification under Section 18 of the Act in respect of 4043 acres and 27 guntas of land and vide letter dated 27.1.2010 the BDA sent to the Government its request enclosing a copy of the said resolution dated 12.1.2010. The Government of Karnataka in its proceedings dated 16.2.2010 accorded approval and sanctioned the scheme under Section 18(3) of the Act for acquisition of 4043 acres and 27 guntas of land. Accordingly, on 18.2.2010 a Final Notification was issued under Section 19 of the Act and 4043 acres and 27 guntas was declared as notified for formation of the layout. 3. The lands sought to be acquired are from 12 villages and the details of which are as follows: Name of the District Name of Taluk Name of the Hobli Name of the Village Total extent Acre- Guntas Bangalore Bangalore North Yeshwanthpur 1) Sheegehalli 99-38 2) Kannelli 413-13 3) Kodigehalli 453-25 4) Manganhalli 37-24 Bangalore Urban Bangalore South Kengeri 5) Kommaghatti 721-34 6) Bheemanakuppe 833-25 7)Bheemanakuppe- 40-27 Ramasagara 8) Sulikere 318-14 9)Kenchanapura 250-38 10)Ramasandra 391-14 11) Kommaghatti- 154-12 Krishnasagara 12)Challaghatta 328-03 GRAND TOTAL 4043-27 4. It is forthcoming from the order dated 2.4.2008 that the government after verifying the proposal of the BDA, while according approval to issue preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Act has ordered, inter alia, as follows: i) to reserve 45% of the area for civic amenities and to use remaining 55% of the land for residential sites by giving 40% of the developed sites at the ratio of 60:40 per acre to the land owners i.e., 9583 sq.ft., area or to pay compensation amount (land owners on request were eligible to receive compensation partly in money and partly in developed sites); ii) to reserve 20% of the sites and to allot sites of 6x9 metres to schedule caste, schedule tribe and backward classes category and to take steps to construct free houses to the economically weaker sections; iii) apart from reserving suitable civic amenity sites, to provide basic amenities to the layout by BBMP, BWSSB, BESCOM and BMTC and other institutions; iv) to provide separate water pipe for the purified water by BWSSB and for drinking water while forming layout; 5. It is further forthcoming that in the Government Order dated 16.2.2010 under Section 18(3) of the Act, that the same is passed subject to the following conditions: i) That the entire expenses of the project shall be borne by the BDA out of its resources; ii) That any loan that will be availed by the BDA for the proposed project, the government will not give any guarantee and loan shall be cleared solely by the BDA; iii) The government will not be part of any affairs that may be entered by the authority; iv) In the event of change of land use, prior permission of the government was to be obtained; 6. Being aggrieved by the acquisition, various writ petitions were filed before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court heard all the writ petitions together and while considering the same has divided the writ petitioners broadly under various heads as is forthcoming from para 3 of the order, which is extracted herein below for ready reference: “3. The petitions are brought by persons, who may be broadly grouped under the following heads, namely: (a) Agriculturists who claim that they are cultivating the land and residing therein and wholly dependant on the land for their livelihood. The petitions are brought by persons, who may be broadly grouped under the following heads, namely: (a) Agriculturists who claim that they are cultivating the land and residing therein and wholly dependant on the land for their livelihood. (b) Persons engaged in rearing milch cattle and vending milk for their livelihood. (c) Nurserymen, who have well developed nurseries and are also said to be cultivating the land for other purposes. (d) House owners, who have built pucca houses well before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. (e) Persons who have established small scale industries including brick factories. (f) Others claiming that the land in question is most inconveniently located for being integrated in the formation of the layout. This is also a common ground urged by several of the above petitioners as well.” 7. After considering various contentions put forth by the writ petitioners as well as BDA, the learned Single Judge has framed 3 points for consideration as regards the legal issues that arose for consideration as is forthcoming from para 11 of the order which is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: “11. The legal issues that arise for consideration in the light of the contentions put forth and which have been hardly met by the BDA are : a. Whether the procedure adopted by the BDA in initiating the acquisition proceedings is in accordance with law and within its jurisdiction. b. Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has the effect of frustrating any proceedings with reference to Section 36 of the BDA Act. c. Whether the acquisition proceedings can be said to have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act having come into force.” 8. While considering point No.(a) the learned Single Judge after noticing the sequence of events resulting in passing of the award as well as the relevant statutory provisions, has recorded the following findings: “It is seen that the BDA need not obtain any previous approval of the Government in drawing up any development scheme. (Whether the same is necessary by virtue of Section 3 (f) (vi) or (vii) of the LA Act, is however, not examined and the question is left open). (Whether the same is necessary by virtue of Section 3 (f) (vi) or (vii) of the LA Act, is however, not examined and the question is left open). There is no explanation forthcoming as to the need for having obtained such approval when the scheme of the Act contemplates that after the publication of the scheme and service of notice as provided in Section 17 of the BDA Act and after consideration of representations, if any, received, the authority shall submit the scheme, making such modifications as it may think fit, to the Government for sanction, furnishing such details as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. It is not contemplated that the Government may consider and “approve” any Scheme even before the BDA has gathered particulars of the lands to be acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore the “approval” said to have been conferred on a nascent development scheme of the BDA by the State Government dated 2.4.2008 is out of place and premature. The presumption is that the State Government and the BDA were proceeding on the footing that the proposed acquisition of the several lands notified under Section 17 of the Act were available for acquisition, even without any of the stake holders having had their say on the viability of the said acquisition in respect of their lands. It is also to be noticed that the notification under Section 17 of the Act is issued by the Commissioner, BDA, in exercise of power conferred thereunder. The BDA is not the acquiring authority, the State Government is. It is therefore impermissible for the BDA to authorize the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA and his staff to exercise power conferred under Section 4 (2) of the LA Act. This is evident from the fact that the State Government exercises its power under clause (c) of Section 3 and Section 7 of the LA Act read with Section 36 of the BDA Act to appoint the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, to perform the duties and functions of the Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) under the LA Act, only after according sanction to the Scheme and while issuing the notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act. Any acts performed by the Addl. Any acts performed by the Addl. LAO, BDA and his staff, prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 19 of the Act, is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal.” The BDA was clearly off bounds in even suggesting that compensation in kind, would be offered and even to specify the percentage of the acquired land that would be compensated by returning developed land of any particular extent. This initiative of the BDA is not contemplated under Section 16 of the BDA Act, which specifies the particulars to be provided for in a development scheme. The BDA would hardly be in a position to determine percentages of land use without completing the process of addressing representations pursuant to the notification under Section 17 and the sanction by the State government in respect of the extent of land ultimately covered under the notification issued under Section 19 of the Act. It may also be said that even at that stage the quantum of compensation is hardly capable of being determined. It is the State Government which would, in the eye of law, acquire the land and determine the compensation to be paid. As is evident, large swathes of land have been given up from the acquisition proceedings and it is not clarified whether the percentages declared as above are any longer valid and tenable. It is also not that all the land holders are “farmers”, nor is it to be taken that all the 4,000 acres, and more of the land, is of a uniform nature and of the same value. It is therefore shocking that the State Government had even approved such a “Scheme” (emphasis supplied) 9. While considering point No.(b), the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding regarding frustration of the acquisition proceedings under the Act after coming into force of the Land Acquisition, 2013, and has held as follows: “It may hence be concluded that the repeal of the LA Act and the coming into force of the 2013 Act would not frustrate further acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. For even without an amendment to Section 36 of the BDA Act, the provisions of the 2013 Act, in so far as they are applicable, would operate to regulate the acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act – according to settled principles as enunciated in the authoritative decisions referred to above. For even without an amendment to Section 36 of the BDA Act, the provisions of the 2013 Act, in so far as they are applicable, would operate to regulate the acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act – according to settled principles as enunciated in the authoritative decisions referred to above. The second point framed for consideration is accordingly answered.” (emphasis supplied) 10. As regards point No.(c) framed for consideration as to whether the acquisition proceedings were lapsed, the learned Single Judge while holding that the proceedings have not lapsed, has recorded the following findings: “In considering the question whether the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, is concerned, it is to be observed that the further proceedings were stayed by this court by an interim order of stay of all further proceedings. The effect of that order would have to be kept in view. It is settled law that any restraint imposed by the courts on any ongoing acquisition proceedings would extend to all aspects of the process. If therefore the acquisition proceedings were kept in abeyance altogether by virtue of the interim order, the application of the provisions of the 2013 Act which have seamlessly replaced the provisions of the LA Act, in so far as they are applicable, to the BDA Act would also be kept in abeyance. It cannot therefore be said that by virtue of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings stood lapsed.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Being aggrieved, the BDA has filed the present appeals. 12. Heard the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri Gurudas Kannur assisted by the panel counsels for the BDA namely, Sri K.Krishna, Sri Murugesh V Charati, Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao, Sri Gowthamdev C Ullal, Sri Sachin B.S. For the respondents, who are the writ petitioners, the submissions of learned Senior Counsels Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Sri M.R.Rajagopal, Sri D.L.Jagadish, Sri K.Suman, Sri K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, and learned counsels Sri C.M.Nagabhushana, Sri L.M.Ramaiah Gowda, Sri M.C.Basavaraju, Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, Sri B.S.Nagaraj, Sri G.R.Mohan as well as other learned counsels. Learned AGA represented the State Government. 13. Learned AGA represented the State Government. 13. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the BDA that the learned Single Judge has erred in quashing the notifications merely on the ground that approval of the State Government was at a nascent stage as also that it was impermissible for the BDA to authorize the Land Acquisition Officer to exercise power under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’] . That the BDA having complied with the provisions of the Act, the acquisition of the BDA ought not to have been quashed. 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners who are the respondents in the present appeals contend that the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisitions was just and proper. It is further submitted that although various grounds were urged before the learned Single Judge, the acquisition was quashed by merely considering the first point for consideration and even if this Court were to set aside the finding of the learned Single Judge on the said point, various other grounds which have been urged by the writ petitioners are required to be considered, for which the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge. 15. Responding to the contention of the writ petitioners regarding remand, it is the contention of the BDA that all the materials are available before this Court for consideration of the aspects regarding the acquisition made by the BDA and the validity of the acquisition is required to be adjudicated in the present appeals itself without remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge. 16. Various statutory provisions and material on record which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties will be specifically referred to during the course of this order. 17. Having regard to the contentions put forth in the present appeals, the questions that arise for consideration are that: i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in quashing the acquisition is just and proper? ii) Whether the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge? iii) Whether the acquisition made by the BDA is in compliance with the provisions of the Act? iv) In what manner the contentions put forth in certain writ petitions pertaining to the facts of the said individual cases are required to be dealt with? ii) Whether the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge? iii) Whether the acquisition made by the BDA is in compliance with the provisions of the Act? iv) In what manner the contentions put forth in certain writ petitions pertaining to the facts of the said individual cases are required to be dealt with? 18. Before considering the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and the order of the learned Single Judge, it is relevant to notice the statutory scheme under the provisions of the Act. 19. Chapter III of the Act deals with Development Schemes. It is relevant to notice Sections 15 to 18 of the Act, which read as under: “15. Power of Authority to undertake works and incur expenditure for development, etc.-(1) The Authority may: (a) draw up detailed schemes (hereinafter referred to as “development scheme”) for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area; and (b) with the previous approval of the Government, undertake from time to time any works for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and incur expenditure therefor and also for the framing and execution of development schemes. (2) The Authority may also from time to time make and take up any new or additional development schemes: (i) on its own initiative, if satisfied of the sufficiency of its resources, or (ii) on the recommendation of the local authority if the local authority places at the disposal of the Authority the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any scheme; or (iii) otherwise. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, whenever it deems necessary require the Authority to take up any development scheme or work and execute it subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Government. 16. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, whenever it deems necessary require the Authority to take up any development scheme or work and execute it subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Government. 16. Particulars to be provided for in a development scheme : Every development scheme under section 15: (1) shall, within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme, provide for: (a) the acquisition of any land which, in the opinion of the Authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme; (b) laying and re-laying out all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings and formation and alteration of streets; (c) drainage, water supply and electricity; (d) the reservation of not less than fifteen percent of the total area of the layout for public parks and playgrounds and an additional area of not less than ten percent of the total area of the layout for civic amenities. (2) may, within the limits aforesaid, provide for: (a) raising any land which the Authority may consider expedient to raise to facilitate better drainage; (b) forming open spaces for the better ventilation of the area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area; (c) the sanitary arrangements required; (3) may, within and without the limits aforesaid provide for the construction of houses. 17. Procedure on completion of scheme : (1) When a development scheme has been prepared, the Authority shall draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the area comprised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied may be seen at all reasonable hours. (2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent to the Corporation which shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the Authority for transmission to the Government as hereinafter provided, any representation which the Corporation may think fit to make with regard to the scheme. (2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent to the Corporation which shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the Authority for transmission to the Government as hereinafter provided, any representation which the Corporation may think fit to make with regard to the scheme. (3) The Authority shall also cause a copy of the said notification to be published in the official Gazette and affixed in some conspicuous part of its own office, the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, the office of the Corporation and in such other places as the Authority may consider necessary. (4) If no representation is received from the Corporation within the time specified in subsection (2), the concurrence of the Corporation to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given. (5) During the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published in the official Gazette the Authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the Authority proposes to recover betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made. (6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order of the Commissioner and shall be served: (a) by personal delivery or if such person is absent or cannot be found, on his agent, or if no agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the land or the building; or (b) by leaving the same at the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person; or (c) by registered post addressed to the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person. 18. 18. Sanction of scheme: (1) After publication of the scheme and service of notices as provided in section 17 and after consideration of representations, if any, received in respect thereof, the Authority shall submit the scheme, making such modifications therein as it may think fit, to the Government for sanction, furnishing: (a) a description with full particulars of the scheme including the reasons for any modifications inserted therein; (b) complete plans and estimates of the cost of executing the scheme; (c) a statement specifying the land proposed to be acquired; (d) any representation received under sub-section (2) of section 17; (e) a schedule showing the rateable value, as entered in the municipal assessment book on the date of the publication of a notification relating to the land under the section 17 or the land assessment of all land specified in the statement under clause(c); and (f) such other particulars, if any, as may be prescribed. (2) Where any development scheme provides for the construction of houses, the Authority shall also submit to the Government plans and estimates for the construction of the houses. (3) After considering the proposal submitted to it the Government may, by order, give sanction to the scheme. 19.1 It is forthcoming that Section 15(1) of the Act entitles the Authority to draw up a scheme for development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and with the previous approval of the Government undertake works and incur expenses for such schemes. Section 15(2) of the Act also enables the Authority to take up new or additional development schemes on its own initiative if it is satisfied of its resources as well as on the recommendation of a Local Authority if the funds are made available by the said Local Authority for framing and carrying out any scheme or otherwise. Section 15(3) of the Act enables the Government to require the authority to take up any development scheme subject to the conditions that it may specify. 19.2 Section 16 of the Act sets out the details and particulars that are required to be provided under the scheme for development under Section 15 of the Act. 19.3 Section 17 of the Act deals with issue of Preliminary Notification. 19.4 Section 18 of the Act deals with steps to be taken consequent to the issue of Preliminary Notification under Section 17 of the Act. 19.3 Section 17 of the Act deals with issue of Preliminary Notification. 19.4 Section 18 of the Act deals with steps to be taken consequent to the issue of Preliminary Notification under Section 17 of the Act. 19.5 Section 19 of the Act deals with issuance of Final Notification. 19.6 Chapter IV of the Act deals with acquisition of land, wherein Section 35 of the Act enables the Authority, with the previous approval of the Government to purchase lands and Section 36 stipulates that the acquisition of land shall be regulated by the provisions, as far as they are applicable of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 19.7 Chapter V of the Act deals with Property and Finance. 20. The appellant – BDA has placed on record that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the layout in question, the award is passed for 2700 acres of land which has been utilized in the following manner: “a) Possession of the 2694 acres 26 Guntas of land is handed over to Engineering Section for formation of layout. b) 26,918 sites are formed to an extent of 2208 Acres 4 Guntas of land. c) Roads Approximately formed: 9 Meter Road 106.47 Kms. 12 Meter Road 78. 51 Kms. 15 Meter Road 13.68 Kms. 18 Meter Road 13.54 Kms. 24 Meter Road 07.31 Kms. 30 Meter Road 04.00 Kms. d) CA Sites formed: 104 CA Sites covering 149 Acres 35 Guntas e) Park & Open Spaces: 125 parks covering 182 Acres 24 Guntas f) Water supply & UGD: 213.14 Kms., of Utility Duct, Power, Water and treated water supply. 7299 Holes are completed. UGD Pipeline -194.7 Kms. Fresh Water Supply-191.02 Kms. Completed. Recycled Water-157.18 Kms. g) Expenses already incurred by the Engineering Section. For UGD: Rs. 1137.6 Crores. Civil Work: Rs.768.27 Crores, For PRR: Rs. 472.34 Crore. h) Compensation for the Acquisition of Land: 687.10 Crores.” 21. It is the case of the appellant – BDA that the extent of land under litigation is about 600 acres and that connectivity of roads, underground drainage, water supply, electricity connection and other works are pending in view of the pendency of the above appeals as the connection is planned in such a way that it operates through the lands under litigation before this Court. Re.question (i): 22. Re.question (i): 22. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding with regard to the issues (b) and (c) in favour of the BDA. 23. While considering question (a) it has held that the approval conferred at the nascent development of the scheme by the State Government vide order dated 2.4.2008 is ‘out of place and premature’. In the said context, it is relevant to note that in the case of Junjamma & Ors., v. BDA & Ors., ILR 2005 KAR 608 a learned Single Judge of this Court considering the scope of power under Section 15 of the Act has held as follows: “10. Previous approval of the Government under Section 15(2) is required for undertaking works for development of the Bangalore Metropolitan area. Similarly, such previous approval is required to incur expenditure therefor. Similarly, such a previous approval is required for preparing and execution of development schemes and not for drawing up a developmental scheme. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 makes it very clear that if the authority has sufficient resources or if a local authority places at the disposal of the authority the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any scheme they can take up new or additional development schemes. Therefore, it is clear only for the expenditure to be incurred either for undertaking, framing or execution of the developmental scheme previous approval of the Government is required. If the authority is able to take up these developmental scheme on its own and it does not depend upon the Government for raising the necessary resources, then there is no necessity to have the previous approval of the Government.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Having regard to Section 15 of the Act and the judgment in the case of Junjamma & Ors., (supra) as noticed above, as well as the fact that in the Government Order dated 16.02.2010 a specific condition is imposed that the entire expenses of the project shall be borne by the BDA out of its resources, that the Government will not give any guarantee, that the loan shall be solely availed by the BDA and there will be no financial responsibility of the Government with respect to the layout being developed by the BDA, approval need not have been taken by the BDA. Despite the same, merely because the BDA has taken the approval of the State Government, it cannot be said that the same is ‘out of place and premature’. Hence, the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 25. With regard to the finding of the learned Single Judge while answering question No.(a) that it was impermissible for the BDA to authorize the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, to exercise the power conferred under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, it is relevant to note that the Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act has been issued by the BDA after prior approval of the State Government. Further, in the case of The Commissioner BDA and Ors., v. State of Karnataka & Ors., ILR 2006 KAR 318 a Division Bench of this Court considering point No.4 in the said case as to the power of BDA to appoint a Land Acquisition Officer, has held as follows: “49. Point No. 4. Power of BDA to appoint LAO.--Sri Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for some of the respondents contended that under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, an officer specially authorized by Government only can perform the functions mentioned under Section 4(2) of the LA Act. The Commissioner of the BDA has no such power to authorize any officer to perform such functions. We do not find any substance in this contention. Firstly, Section 36 of the BDA Act makes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act so far as they are applicable, to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. Section 52 of the BDA Act empowers the authority to authorize any person to enter into or upon any land or building with or without the assistants or workmen for the purpose of making any enquiry, inspection, measurement or survey or taking levels of such land or building; digging or boring into the subsoil; setting out boundaries and intended lines of work; marking such levels, boundaries and lines by placing marks and cutting trenches and doing any other thing necessary for the efficient administration of the BDA Act. 50. 50. It is the Bangalore Development Authority which has issued the Section 17(1) notification under the BDA Act and has authorized the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, its staff and workmen to exercise the powers conferred under Section 4(2) of the LA Act which is almost identical with Section 52 of the BDA Act. The Commissioner of the BDA who is the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer of the Authority has authenticated the same by his signature. Instead of mentioning Section 52 of the BDA Act, Section 4(2) of the L.A. Act has been mentioned. It is settled law that mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law would make no difference. Power is vested in the authority and in exercise of the said power appointments are made. Therefore, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention.“ (emphasis supplied) 26. In the case of Junjamma & Ors., (supra), while considering the question as to whether appointment of the Land Acquisition Officer under the Act is one without jurisdiction, it has been held as follows: 17. Re.Point No. (4):-It was next contended that in exercise of the powers under Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, has been authorised to exercise the power conferred under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As the Additional Land Acquisition Officer is not an officer of the Government he cannot be appointed. Secondly, it was contended Section 36 comes into picture only after the land vests with the Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore even before such vesting the said Section is not attracted and, therefore, the appointment made is one without jurisdiction. Consequently, all the proceedings conducted by such officer is without the authority of law and liable to be quashed. 18. Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act provides that the acquisition of the land under the Act otherwise than by agreement within or without the Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they applicable to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It only means in the Act when there is no provision prescribed for acquisition of land, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act could be availed of for the acquisition proceedings. It only means in the Act when there is no provision prescribed for acquisition of land, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act could be availed of for the acquisition proceedings. In other words if the Act provides for specifically to that extent the Land Acquisition Act stands excluded and in the absence of any provision, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act are applicable to the acquisition under the Act. In fact, Sub-section (2) of Section 36 categorically states that for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Authority under the Act shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned. When a notification is issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act under Section 4(2) any officer either generally or specially authorized by such Government in that behalf and his servants and workmen can take up the preliminary work as mentioned in the Sub-section (2) of Section 4. When the Commissioner under the Act issued the notification it is the Land Acquisition Officer of the Authority and his staff and Workmen who are authorized to exercise the power conferred under Section 4(2) of the Act the said power is exercised by the Commissioner under Section 4(2) of the Act because there is no corresponding provision in the Act. Merely because the Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority is not an Officer of the Government it cannot be said that he cannot be appointed under the provisions nor such an appointment would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Under the Act though the preliminary notification is issued by the BDA the final notification is issued by the Government after sanction of the Scheme submitted by the BDA and it is the Government which publishes the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. It is in that context coupled with the fact that Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the cost of acquisition should be borne by local authority after the acquisition is complete and on payment of the cost of acquisition and on issue of notification of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the land which has vested with the Government would be transferred to the Authority and it is thereafter that the land vests with the Authority. Therefore the contention that Section 36 comes into picture only after the land vests with the Government under Section 16 of the Act is contrary to the express provision contained under Section 36. In that view of the matter there is no substance in the contention that because of the appointment of Additional Land Acquisition Officer attached to the BDA the acquisition proceedings are vitiated.” (emphasis supplied) 27. Having regard to the statutory provisions as noticed and as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of The Commissioner BDA and Ors., (supra), and Junjamma & Ors. (supra), as noticed above, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on issue (a) with regard to the appointment of Land Acquisition Officers by the BDA for the acquisition proceedings is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 28. With regard to the observation made by the learned Single Judge while discussing regarding point (a) as to the percentage of the land that was to be used for civic amenities as well as to be offered as compensation to the farmers in respect of which the learned Single Judge had opined that the BDA ‘was clearly off bounds’ and further observed that ‘it is therefore shocking that the State Government had even approved such a scheme’, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors., v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 129 while noticing various aspects regarding the kinds of acquisition and hardship that are caused to the landlosers observed as follows: “48. …. “Public purposes” may be of different degrees of importance/priority/urgency. An acquisition for laying a road or a water supply canal may be of higher priority category when compared to acquisitions for formation of an urban residential layout. Planned urban development by forming residential layouts, is carried out not only by statutory Development Authorities, but also by private developers/colonisers. The reason why the legislature has created Development Authorities for executing development schemes, is because they can undertake large-scale developments providing better quality facilities with no profit motives. But in trying to achieve planned development and thereby benefit the urban middle class or urban poor by providing them housing plots, the interests of agriculturists/landowners who lose their livelihood on account of such acquisition, should not be ignored. But in trying to achieve planned development and thereby benefit the urban middle class or urban poor by providing them housing plots, the interests of agriculturists/landowners who lose their livelihood on account of such acquisition, should not be ignored. Though the legislature intended that the landloser should get reasonable compensation at the time of dispossession or immediately thereafter, it seldom happens in practice.” (emphasis supplied) 29. After observing the kinds of acquisitions, while setting out the different types of benefits that will make acquisitions landloser friendly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as follows: “153. The solution is to make the landlosers also the beneficiaries of acquisition so that the landlosers do not feel alienated but welcome the acquisition. It is necessary to evolve tailor-made schemes to suit particular acquisitions, so that they will be smooth, speedy, litigation-free and beneficial to all concerned. Proper planning, adequate counselling, and timely mediation with different groups of landlosers, should be resorted to. Let us consider the different types of benefits that will make acquisitions landloser-friendly. 153.1 ……… 153.2 ……… 153.3 Where the acquisition is of the third kind, that is, for urban development (either by formation of housing colonies by Development Authorities or by making bulk allotment to colonisers, developers or housing societies), there is no scope for providing benefits like employment or a share in the equity. But the landlosers can be given a share in the development itself, by making available a reasonable portion of the developed land to the landloser so that he can either use it personally or dispose of a part and retain a part or put it to other beneficial use. ………” (emphasis supplied) 30. The BDA has placed on record that while issuing the notification under Section 17 of the Act for the formation of Dr.Shivarama Karanth Layout, a similar scheme for reserving a percentage of the land to be given to the land owners of their choice had been incorporated. While considering a challenge made to the acquisition of the BDA for the said layout, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 9 SCC 122 has observed as follows: “20. While considering a challenge made to the acquisition of the BDA for the said layout, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 9 SCC 122 has observed as follows: “20. The scheme which was framed was so much benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residential purpose was to be given to the landowners at their choice and they were also given the choice to obtain the compensation, if they so desired, under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there was no scope for any exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification.” (emphasis supplied) 31. Further, in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, order dated 3.12.2020 passed in Misc. Application No.1614-1616/2019 it was further observed as follows: “12. The State Government is directed to grant approval to the 60:40 scheme in respect of the layout in question, if necessary, within two weeks from today. The State Government is also directed to depute additionally six Land Acquisition Officers to the BDA within two weeks from today.” (emphasis supplied) 32. Hence, it is submitted by the BDA that keeping in mind the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court6 in order to make the acquisitions more friendly to the land losers, a percentage of the acquired area was offered to be conveyed to the land losers while formulating the scheme for acquisition and the percentage stipulated in the present acquisition is not an isolated instance and that in the acquisition made in the formation of Dr.Shivarama Karanth Layout also a similar mode of payment of compensation has been adopted, which has been noted and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . 33. Having regard to what is noticed above and the submission made on behalf of the BDA, the observations made by the learned Single Judge as noticed at para 8 are also erroneous and liable to be set aside. 34. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the finding of the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition is clearly erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re. Question No.(ii): 35. 34. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the finding of the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition is clearly erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re. Question No.(ii): 35. Learned Senior Counsel for the BDA in support of the contention that the matters are required to be adjudicated by this Court submits that all the materials that are necessary for adjudicating regarding the acquisition made by the BDA, already being the subject matter of the present appeals, the validity of the acquisition proceedings also is required to be adjudicated in these appeals. 36. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that various contentions having been urged before the learned Single Judge and the orders in the writ petitions having been made with regard to only a few limited questions as framed by the learned Single Judge, in order to consider the other contentions, the matters will require to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for adjudication even if the order of learned Single Judge is set aside. Both learned Counsels have relied on certain judgments which shall be considered in the course of adjudication of the present question. 37. Reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the BDA on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Town House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, AIR 1988 Kar 312 wherein, the Full Bench was considering the question: ‘Whether a Division Bench hearing the writ appeals against the order of Single Judge has power to remand the cases to the learned Single Judge or not?’ 37.1. The Hon’ble Chief Justice heading the Bench, has held as follows: “6. Before finding out an answer to the question, it may be observed at the outset that a learned single Judge of the High Court cannot be regarded as a Court subordinate to the High Court, that an appeal has been provided under a statute validly enacted by the Legislature, that the appellate jurisdiction conferred by S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, does not bring out any alteration in the constitution or organisation of the High Court, and that provision for an appeal merely regulates the exercise of that power by the High Court. As we find, S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act does not define the scope of the appellate power. Again, there are no relevant rules in this respect. Normally, when a power of appeal is conferred, it implies conferment of all incidental and ancillary powers necessary to effectuate the grant of specific power. Further, such an express power, if not specifically hedged by any limitation, inheres within it, all qualities and attributes implied in the nature of such a power. ….. ” “14. ….. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the answers to the questions referred to us may be stated as follows :— (i) That there is an inherent power in the Division Bench hearing writ appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge, to remand the case to be decided afresh by a learned single Judge; (ii) That a remand order may be passed in cases where a Writ Petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution or in limine or on the ground of delay or maintainability or on some question of law without going into merits, etc. However, it is best in these matters to be neither dogmatic nor exhaustive, yet the aforesaid categories are the ones in which the Appellate Bench may exercise its power of remand; and (iii) That where a Writ Petition has been disposed of on merits by an order made by a learned single Judge, a Division Bench on Appeal would have no jurisdiction to remand such a case to a learned single Judge for fresh decision on merits and the appeal has to be disposed of on merits by the Division Bench itself”. (emphasis supplied) 37.2. In the concurring opinion, it was held as follows: “27. On reconsideration of the matter in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Umaji's Case ( AIR 1986 SC 1272 ). I am of the view that if a Writ Petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution or in limine on grounds such as delay, maintainability etc., and not on merits by a learned single Judge and such an order is taken in appeal and the Division Bench sets aside such an order,the Writ Petition gets restored. I am of the view that if a Writ Petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution or in limine on grounds such as delay, maintainability etc., and not on merits by a learned single Judge and such an order is taken in appeal and the Division Bench sets aside such an order,the Writ Petition gets restored. As a consequence in view of Sec. 9 of the Act and the Rules, the Writ Petition has to be posted for preliminary hearing or final hearing, as the case may be before a learned single Judge. It is in this manner and to this extent, it appears to me it can be said that the Division Bench has the inherent or incidental power to bring about a remand of the Writ Petition by a learned single Judge. 28. …. 29. …. 30. …. 31. Section 4 referred to above provides for an appellate forum. In the absence of any restriction, it should be understood that the appellate power under the said provision has all the qualities of any other appellate power. The fact that it is an intra-Court appeal may be a relevant factor in considering the appropriateness of making a particular order in the course of exercising the said appellate power. 32. An appellate power necessarily includes a power to remand the cause to be decided by the original authority or Court. Such a power is inherent in the appellate power. Since the appellate power is conferred on a Bench of the same High Court here, while exercising the said appellate power necessarily the appellate Bench will have to be guided by principles of propriety while remitting a cause to the original side Bench. It is in this background I consider that the power to remit a cause to the original Bench by the Division Bench will have to be sparingly used when the situation absolutely warrants such_a remand, as opined by my Lord the Chief Justice. (emphasis supplied) 38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roma Sonkar Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission and others, (2018) 7 SCC 106 has held as follows: “We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission and others, (2018) 7 SCC 106 has held as follows: “We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge. (emphasis supplied) 39. Having regard to the settled position of law as held in the case of Roma Sonkar (supra) and in the case of Town House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., (supra) in the present case, the writ petitions having been adjudicated on its merits and the present appeals having been filed challenging the said decision, it is just and proper that the entirety of the matter on its merits be considered in these present appeals itself without remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge. 40. There is a factual aspect which is required to be placed on record at the present juncture. That the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 2008 with the issue of preliminary notification and a total extent of 4043 acres and 27 guntas have been notified for acquisition in the final notification. The subject matter of the present appeals is an extent of 600 acres. That the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 2008 with the issue of preliminary notification and a total extent of 4043 acres and 27 guntas have been notified for acquisition in the final notification. The subject matter of the present appeals is an extent of 600 acres. Further, the development of layout having been partially completed as morefully noticed at para No.20 hereinabove and the question as to the validity of the acquisition proceedings having been pending for adjudication for nearly 16 years and various allottees of sites for whom the layout is being formed as well as the landowners are waiting for many years for a culmination of the litigation, it is expedient that the merits of the matter be adjudicated in the present appeals itself. Hence, question No.(ii). framed for consideration is answered in the negative. Re. Question No.(iii): 41. Before considering as to whether the acquisition made by the BDA is in accordance with law, it is necessary to notice various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the legal position of the acquisitions made by the BDA. 41.1 The acquisition made by the BDA for formation of Arkavathi Layout was the subject matter of challenge before this Court wherein a learned Single Judge quashed the said acquisition. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the appeals filed by the BDA in The Commissioner BDA and Ors., (supra), while considering the question as to whether the Land Acquisition Act prevails over the Act, has held as follows: “41. Therefore, it is clear that the BDA Act is one which will squarely fall under and traceable to the powers of the State Legislature under Entry 5 of List II of VII Schedule in the Constitution of India. The BDA Act so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned in substance and effect will constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the said purpose of the BDA and, therefore, it cannot be considered to be part of the LA Act. Thus a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for its implementation under BDA Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Section 4 or 5A which has no application to the actions taken under the BDA Act. Thus a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for its implementation under BDA Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Section 4 or 5A which has no application to the actions taken under the BDA Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned single Judge in this regard is liable to be set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 41.1.1 The Division Bench while considering the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the acquisition proceedings which are in public interest, has held as follows: “77. Therefore, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the courts, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just cause. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable. 78. A memo filed by the BDA discloses that, in the total extent of 2,750 acres which is notified for acquisition in the final notification, challenge to the acquisition is only to the extent of about 748 acres. There is no challenge to the acquisition regarding rest of the land. About 538 acres of land belongs to the Government itself. In respect of 92 acres, no objections were filed. It is on record that to the extent of about 1228 acres awards have been passed; compensation paid, possession taken; layout is formed. 14,103 sites carved out. 2,29,000 applications received for allotment of sites. Under these circumstances to quash acquisition proceedings of this magnitude on the aforesaid grounds would be wholly unjustified and would be against public interest.” (emphasis supplied) 41.1.2 While considering the grievance of the writ petitioners that there was discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the BDA in notifying the lands for acquisition, wherein the lands belonging to influential and powerful persons which are adjoining their lands and which are similarly situated are not notified for acquisition, the Division Bench5 has ordered as follows : “102. Though the learned single Judge may be justified in holding that there is discrimination and arbitrariness in acquiring the land of the petitioners in W.P. No. 28087/2004, after referring to the pleadings in para 5 of the Writ Petition, which was not rebutted by the BDA or the Government in their statement of objections, he should have confined the relief only to those petitioners who have proved their case. On that ground he could not have quashed the entire acquisition relating to 2,750 acres. We are also satisfied that the plea of discrimination taken by some of the land owners is well founded. However, it is a disputed fact, which cannot be gone into in these appeals, without there being enough material on record. In fact the BDA and Government have not traversed those allegations of discrimination specifically. Under these circumstances and in the light of the aforesaid memo, we deem it proper to give an opportunity to all those land owners (excluding site owners) who have taken the plea of discrimination to file an appropriate application before the BDA for deletion of their lands from acquisition, and to substantiate their contention by producing such evidence which are available with them. On such application being filed and after holding an enquiry, the BDA shall consider their requests. If they are able to establish that their lands are similarly situated as that of the other land owners, whose land was not at all notified for acquisition, or having been notified under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, excluded from acquisition after upholding the objection, the said lands shall be excluded from acquisition. On receipt of such a report, the scheme already sanctioned by the Government shall stand amended accordingly, and the Government shall pass appropriate orders in this regard.” (emphasis supplied) 41.1.3 The Division Bench upheld the acquisition subject to certain conditions, the details of which shall be noticed subsequently. 41.2 The judgment of the Division Bench was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy (supra) wherein, with regard to the non-compliance of Sections 15 to 19 of the Act and the specific contention that there was absence of specificity and discrepancy in extent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “104. Necessarily, a preparation of a development scheme would contemplate survey and ascertainment of suitable available land for acquisition and preparation of a scheme. Before the -scheme is finalised there will necessarily be modifications and changes. Even publication of a notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act stating that the scheme has been made and specifying the lands which are proposed to be acquired is subject to a revision on consideration of representations/objections and deletions warranted. Therefore, the mere fact that there were some modifications from time to time between 2001 when the initial proposal was mooted till the issue of the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) or that some lands were omitted/deleted in the declaration under Section 19(1) will not affect the validity of the scheme. In fact deletion of some items of land or reducing the extent proposed to be acquired in some items of land, when issuing final declaration is made is quite common and is indeed a result of the process prescribed under any Act providing for acquisitions. The changes and modifications are in fact contemplated in the process of making the scheme under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act.” (emphasis supplied) 41.2.1 With regard to the contention regarding discrimination, malafides and arbitrariness, the Hon'ble Supreme Court , has observed as follows: “136. Sporadic small unauthorised constructions in unauthorised colonies/layouts, are not to be deleted as the very purpose of acquisition for planned development is to avoid such unauthorised development. If hardship is the reason for such deletion, the appropriate course is to give preference to the land/plot owners in making allotments and help them to resettle and not to continue the illegal and haphazard pockets merely on the ground that some temporary structure or a dilapidated structure existed therein. A Development Authority should either provide orderly development or should stay away from development. It cannot act like unscrupulous private developers/colonisers attempting development of small bits of land with only profit motive. When we refer to private developers/colonisers by way of comparison, our intention is not to deprecate all private developers/colonisers. We are aware that several private developers/colonisers provide large, well-planned authorised developments, some of which are even better than developments by Development Authorities. What is discouraged and deprecated is small unauthorised layouts without any basic amenities. Be that as it may. (emphasis supplied) 41.2.2. We are aware that several private developers/colonisers provide large, well-planned authorised developments, some of which are even better than developments by Development Authorities. What is discouraged and deprecated is small unauthorised layouts without any basic amenities. Be that as it may. (emphasis supplied) 41.2.2. Considering the principles regarding grant of relief in cases of discrimination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court , has held as follows: “143. We are conscious of the fact that when a person subjected to blatant discrimination, approaches a court seeking equal treatment, he expects relief similar to what others have been granted. All that he is interested is getting relief for himself, as others. He is not interested in getting the relief illegally granted to others, quashed. Nor is he interested in knowing whether others were granted relief legally or about the distinction between positive equality and negative equality. In fact he will be reluctant to approach courts for quashing the relief granted to others on the ground that it is illegal, as he does not want to incur the wrath of those who have benefited from the wrong action. As a result, in most cases those who benefit by the illegal grants/actions by authorities, get away with the benefit, while others who are not fortunate to have “connections” or “money power” suffer. But these are not the grounds for courts to enforce negative equality and perpetuate the illegality. 158. Where arbitrary and unexplained deletions and exclusions from acquisition, of large extents of notified lands, render the acquisitions meaningless, or totally unworkable, the court will have no alternative but to quash the entire acquisition. But where many landlosers have accepted the acquisition and received the compensation, and where possession of considerable portions of acquired lands has already been taken, and development activities have been carried out by laying plots and even making provisional or actual allotments, those factors have to be taken note of, while granting relief. The Division Bench has made an effort to protect the interests of all parties, on the facts and circumstances, by issuing detailed directions. But implementation of these directions may lead to further litigations and complications.” (emphasis supplied) 41.2.3 Having regard to the various scenarios contemplated while granting of reliefs when there was discrimination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court6 affirmed the directions of the Division Bench of this Court and has issued further directions. But implementation of these directions may lead to further litigations and complications.” (emphasis supplied) 41.2.3 Having regard to the various scenarios contemplated while granting of reliefs when there was discrimination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court6 affirmed the directions of the Division Bench of this Court and has issued further directions. 41.3 The acquisition made by the BDA for formation of the Vishveshwaraiah layout was the subject matter of challenge before this Court. A learned Single Judge in the case of Junjamma & Ors., (supra), while considering as to whether the notifications are liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness, non mentioning of public purpose and not giving clear description of the property, has held as follows: “14. A comparison of the aforesaid two Sections discloses that in Section 17(1) of the Act there is no obligation cast upon the acquiring authority to mention the public purposes for which the land is needed. On the contrary what is to be mentioned in a notification under Section 17(1) is that a developmental scheme has been prepared and the said fact is to be stated in the notification and the limits of the area comprised therein and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax would be levied may be seen at all reasonable hours is all to be mentioned in the notification. When we look atSection 17(1) notification issued, it is mentioned that it appears to the Bangalore Development Authority that lands specified in the schedule hereto is likely to be needed for the purpose of formation of a layout called Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout and in that regard a developmental scheme has been proposed and that the particulars of the scheme, the maps of the area comprised therein and the statement specifying the lands which is proposed to be acquired may be seen in the office of the Additional land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, during the office hours on all working days. Thus the notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act complies with all the legal requirements mentioned in the aforesaid provision. It is not vague. Thus the notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act complies with all the legal requirements mentioned in the aforesaid provision. It is not vague. In the judgment of the Supreme Court as aforesaid, in the preliminary notification in the column ‘public purpose’ it was shown the land is required for residential purpose and the only description given about the land to be acquired was that 2.29 hectares of land proposed to be acquired is situated in District Mandsaur, Village Mandsaur. Whereas, in the final notification issued under Section 6(1) the public purpose has been stated to be housing scheme of housing board, thus the public purpose mentioned in 4(1) notification was different from what was mentioned in 6(1) notification which was again different from what was mentioned in the letter of the Board to the Government. Similarly, the description of the property as required under law was not given. The Supreme Court therefore held those factors go to expose non application of mind by the authorities while issuing the impugned notification and it appears that they were not even sure of the public purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired. It is in that context it was held that the impugned notifications are vitiated on account of being vague and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of that law. 15. Whereas in the instant case, the notification issued is strictly in conformity with the requirements of law. The land sought to be acquired is clearly mentioned by giving the names of the kathedars/anubhavadars, the survey numbers, the nature of the land, the extent of land owned, extent of land proposed for acquisition and the boundaries of the land which is proposed to be acquired, name of the Village where the land is situated and also the total land acquired under the scheme. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners that the notification is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness.” (emphasis supplied) 41.3.1. With regard to the contention that the lands used for nursery and garden cannot be used for residential purposes without there being appropriate permission by the planning authority, the learned Single Judge has held as follows: “34. With regard to the contention that the lands used for nursery and garden cannot be used for residential purposes without there being appropriate permission by the planning authority, the learned Single Judge has held as follows: “34. Similarly, there is no substance in the contention that having regard to the user of the land acquired, namely non-residential purpose; industrial purpose, commercial purpose, lands, used for nursery and garden cannot be used for residential purpose without there being appropriate permission obtained from the planning authority. In fact, in this regard the learned counsels for the petitioners relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of B.R. Baliga v. Town Municipal Council, Udupi, D.K. [1995 (4) Kar. L.J. 408.] where it has been held that when land which is acquired is an agricultural land acquired for the purpose of forming a residential layout the permission of the Planning Authority is required for the change of land use. Without such permission the land cannot be used for residential purposes. That again does not affect the power of the Authority or the Government to acquire the land. It is only after acquisition of the land that the authority can seek permission for change of land use. The very fact than there is at provision for change of land use implies that the owner of the land is entitled to approach the planning-authorities for change of land use. But such a request is to be made by the owner of the land. The ownership of the land could be acquired by the Authority by the mode of acquisition. Therefore, not obtaining prior permission from the Planning Authority for change of land use does not in anyway vitiate the acquisition of land. In fact while according sanction under Section 18(3) of the Act, the Government has categorically stated that the sanction sought for is granted subject to the condition that the Authority shall obtain permission for change of land use. Therefore, not obtaining prior permission for change of land use would in no way vitiate the acquisition proceedings.” (emphasis supplied) 41.3.2 With regard to the acquisition made in the Green Belt, it was held as follows: “36. ………. Therefore, not obtaining prior permission for change of land use would in no way vitiate the acquisition proceedings.” (emphasis supplied) 41.3.2 With regard to the acquisition made in the Green Belt, it was held as follows: “36. ………. If as a result of acute shortage of land within the city nearby agricultural land situated in the green belt is acquired by the Government it cannot be said that it is not a case of proper exercise of power under the Act by the Government. There is a large influx of people from all over the country to Bangalore. A comprehensive development plan has been prepared by the Planning Authority for the City of Bangalore earmarking residential area, commercial area, industrial area, etc., in the said plan. The said plan is not static. It is reviewed from time to time. Similarly, the green belt area shown in the Comprehensive. Development Plan cannot be static for all time to come. In any Comprehensive Development Plan sufficient area is to be earmarked as green belt area. If a portion of a green belt area is utilised for the formation of a layout consequently the authorities may earmark equivalent extent of land as green belt by extending the original green belt area. That is the reason why the boundary of the Bangalore Metropolitan area is extended from time to time by issuing notifications by the Government including more and more villages. The need is ever growing. It is for the planning authorities who are vested with the power to prepare a Comprehensive Development Plan, to take into consideration the needs of the public and other factors and earmark the green belt area. However all this would not in anyway affect the power of the Government under the Land Acquisition Act or the power of the Authority or the Government under the Act to acquire land which is situated within the green belt area for the formation of layout. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the said contention.” (emphasis supplied) 41.3.3. While considering the case of acquisition of nursery lands and as to whether any persons whose lands are similarly placed has not been acquired, it was held as follows: “48. ………….. if petitioners who are similarly placed as that of the owners whose land is not acquired then, on that ground the entire acquisition itself cannot be set aside. While considering the case of acquisition of nursery lands and as to whether any persons whose lands are similarly placed has not been acquired, it was held as follows: “48. ………….. if petitioners who are similarly placed as that of the owners whose land is not acquired then, on that ground the entire acquisition itself cannot be set aside. At best persons who are similarly placed are also entitled to the relief which is given to others. Therefore it is necessary to examine the entitlement of the petitioners before Court to the relief in the facts and circumstances of each case. Before any relief could be given to the petitioners in these case, an investigation has to be conducted to find out whether their case would fall within the parameters prescribed by the authorities on the basis of which relief is given to the persons who are similarly placed. 49. In the statement of objections filed before this Court the respondents deny the fact that the petitioners are similarly placed. Therefore, if this court has to grant any relief to the petitioners the court has to investigate into these disputed questions of fact and then only the petitioners would be entitled to the relief. For that purpose it has to be seen what is the nature of the plea of each petitioner, what was the position of the land on the date of preliminary notification, whether the entire land claimed by the petitioner would fall within the exempted category, if not what is the extent of land which could be excluded etc. It is also necessary to find out whether any of the petitioners have altered or improved the properties after obtaining the interim order from this Court. By mere looking into the photographs produced it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion. It requires an investigation, after affording reasonable opportunities to all the parties concerned to produce evidence and then to arrive at a conclusion. This Court cannot undertake this exercise in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am of the view the appropriate course would be as was done in Subesingh's case where Supreme Court directed the authority to consider the objections raised by the petitioners for exclusion of their properties from acquisition in the light of what is stated above and then pass appropriate orders on its merits. Therefore, I am of the view the appropriate course would be as was done in Subesingh's case where Supreme Court directed the authority to consider the objections raised by the petitioners for exclusion of their properties from acquisition in the light of what is stated above and then pass appropriate orders on its merits. If said lands are similarly situated as that of the others certainly the authorities are bound to give the same benefit to those persons. If it is not similarly placed it is always open to the authorities to reject their objections and proceed further in the matter. This complaint could not have been made by the petitioners in the original objections filed by them for acquisition. Therefore, all that they have contended in their objection statement is that their land is not liable to be acquired for the reasons mentioned therein. The present objection has arisen after their objections are over ruled whereas the objections of persons who are similarly placed are accepted. Therefore, the authorities have to necessarily take in to consideration the material which was before them while upholding the objections of others and compare the same with the petitioners herein who have raised similar objections and then come to their own conclusion on merits and pass appropriate orders. It is in the nature of a subsequent event. Therefore, there is no necessity to quash the acquisition which is otherwise valid and legal and thus it would meet the ends of justice.” (emphasis supplied) 42. The acquisitions in the said case have been upheld subject to various directions which shall be discussed subsequently. 43. Having regard to the settled position of law and the factual matrix as noticed above, it is clear that consequent to the approval granted by the State Government on 02.04.2008 approving the scheme and permitting the BDA to issue Preliminary Notification under Section 17 of the Act, the Preliminary Notification was issued on 21.05.2008 under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Act whereunder, it was proposed as follows: “Whereas it appears to the Bangalore Development Authority, that the lands specified in the schedule hereto likely to be needed for the purpose ie, for the formation of layout called "NADA PRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT" including Link Roads. In this scheme as approved by the Government of Karnataka vide Bangalore, dated:2/4/2008, 45% of the Land covered under the scheme would be used for Civic Amenities, Play Grounds, Roads, etc., and the residential sites, would be formed by utilizing the remaining 55% of the Land. Out of this 55% developed residential area, 40% of 55% will be offered as compensation to the farmers as specified in the scheme and the remaining 60% of 55% will be the share of the BDA. The farmers are also given option to accept the developed eligible residential land or opt for Compensation / both.” 44. Vide the said notification, an extent of 4814 acres 15 guntas of land was notified. Subsequently, vide notification dated 18.02.2010, a Final Notification was issued under Section 19 of the Act whereunder, it was stated as follows: “Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No.12 of 1976), the Government of Karnataka hereby declares that the lands specified in the Scheduled noted below be the same a little more or less are needed for public purpose viz for the formation of a layout called “NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT" and in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause-(c) of the Section 3 and Section 7 of Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act-1/1984) as amended and extended from time to time by the Land Acquisition (Karnataka and amendment) Act 1961 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1961) read with Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Authority Ac, 1976, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, is hereby appointed to perform the duties and functions of the Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), under the Land Acquisition Act and directed to take order for Acquisition Lands.” 45. The extent of lands notified in the said final notification is an extent of 4043 acres 27 guntas. Thereafter, it has been placed on record by the BDA that award is passed for 2700 acres of land, out of which 2694 acres 26 guntas of land has been handed over to the engineering section for formation of layout and 26918 sites are formed in an extent of 2208 acres 4 guntas of land. The details of the land used for civic amenities and other utilities are noticed at para 20 hereinabove. 46. The details of the land used for civic amenities and other utilities are noticed at para 20 hereinabove. 46. Having regard to the aforementioned, a relevant consideration is that, undisputedly, the lands have been acquired in public interest for the purpose of formation of a layout to satisfy housing needs of the general public in the city of Bengaluru. It is further notified that 20% of the sites are reserved for schedule caste, schedule tribes and backward classes category and steps are to be taken to construct free houses for economically weaker sections. The judgment in the case of The Commissioner, BDA (supra) , lays down the scope of interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the acquisitions which are made in the public interest. It is also relevant to note that out of 4043 acres and 27 guntas notified for acquisition, the acquisitions have been challenged only insofar as an extent of 600 acres. 47. With regard to the contention of the writ petitioners that a large extent of land which was notified in the preliminary notification was left out in the final notification, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy (supra) has categorically held that deletion of some lands or reducing the extent proposed to be acquired when issuing a final notification is common and is a result of process prescribed under the Act. Hence, the said contention of the writ petitioners is liable to be rejected. 48. In the present case, it is clear that the Preliminary Notification and Final Notification have been issued after following the due process as stipulated under the Act. The contention of some of the writ petitioners that their lands have been notified for acquisition while similarly placed lands have been left out, has to be considered on the facts of each individual case and the said contention is not a ground to quash the entire notification / acquisition. 49. The contention of some of the writ petitioners that their lands have been notified for acquisition while similarly placed lands have been left out, has to be considered on the facts of each individual case and the said contention is not a ground to quash the entire notification / acquisition. 49. It is also relevant to note that in the case of Junjamma & Ors., (supra), the contention regarding vagueness of the notification and not giving clear description of the property has also been considered and that it has been categorically held that as long as survey number and extent of lands and the boundaries of lands are mentioned, as has been done in the present case, the question of quashing the acquisition under the said ground does not arise. 50. With regard to the contention that Nursery and Garden lands cannot be acquired and reliance is placed on various Government Orders in support of the same, it is relevant to note that said aspect has also been considered by this Court in the case of Junjamma & Ors., (supra), wherein, it has been categorically held that it is only after the acquisition that the authority is required to seek adequate permission for change of land use and hence, on the said ground, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed. Further, Government Orders will not in any manner restrict the exercise of a power vested under a statute. 51. In view of the foregoing discussion, the acquisition made by the BDA cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The acquisition made is just and proper. The preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 and final notification dated 18.02.2010 having been validly issued are accordingly upheld. Hence, question No.(iii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re. Question No.(iv): 52. The acquisition made is just and proper. The preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 and final notification dated 18.02.2010 having been validly issued are accordingly upheld. Hence, question No.(iii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re. Question No.(iv): 52. After considering the submissions made by various learned Counsels wherein contentions were urged which were peculiar to the facts of the said individual cases, their grievances could be categorized as follows: i) grievances by owners of nursery/garden lands as well as lands where the owners were carrying out agricultural operations; ii) grievances by owners of lands who contend that similarly placed lands have been left out when the final notification was issued or in respect of which subsequently the lands have been denotified from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act; iii) grievances by owners of lands where educational institutions are situated; iv) grievances by owners of lands whose surrounding lands have been denotified; v) grievances of site owners who have purchased sites in layouts formed prior to the preliminary notification and where, in some cases residential houses have been constructed; and vi) grievances of owners who are running a brick or other industry. 53. Some of the writ petitioners have placed on record notifications issued under Section 48 of the LA Act wherein, the lands have been deleted from acquisition, the details of z: Sl. No. Date Sy. No. Extent Acquired A – G Extent Withdrawn Village Name of the Kathedar 1 22.5.2010 8 (nursery land) 99.21 2.00 Sulikere H.V.Subbakrishna 2 6.4.2010 3 3.28 3.28 Kodigehalli Huchhappa, Parthasarathi 3 7.4.2010 101/2 3.05 3.05 Kenchanapura Dr.P.Mallikarjuna swamy s/o R.Puttamadaiah 4 7.4.2010 22 2.00 2.00 Kencahanapura R.Puttamadaiah s/o late Ramaiah 5 8.4.2010 15 4.00 4.00 Sulikere Lankappa, Hanumanthaiah, Government, R.Naveen s/o Ramaswamy 6 27.5.2010 55/1 9.28 4.33 Kodigehalli Doddahanumanthaiah Revanna, Chikkahanumanthaiah K.K.Krishnappa s/o Late H.K.Kalappa 7 6.9.2010 28 14.20 8.33 Challaghatta M.Madanlala s/o Mongilala, D.Jaichand s/o Deepchand, Rajakumari w/o D.Jaichand, Rajakumari w/o D.Jaichand 8 7.4.2010 22 2.00 2.00 Kencahanapura R.Puttamadaiah s/o late Ramaiah 54. It is further relevant to note that the writ petitioners have also referred to the orders passed in certain writ petitions wherein, the acquisitions have been dropped, the details of which are as follows: 54.1 Order dated 2.4.2014 WP No.9097-9100/2010 & 9103-9106/2010, which reads as follows: “ORDER The learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S Patil, appearing for the Counsel for the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), files a memo, which reads as follows:- “MEMO As per the affidavit of the Commissioner of Bangalore Development Authority dated 18.8.2011 and list accompanied the following petition schedule lands are Nursery lands. Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent Village 1 111 9 acres Ramasandra 2 116 1 Acre 30 guntas Ramasandra 3 115 27 guntas Ramasandra 4 75 2 acres 21 guntas Kommaghatta 5 76 03 guntas Kommaghatta 6 77/1 1 acre 19 guntas Kommaghatta 7 77/2B 3 acres 36 guntas Kommaghatta The rest of the lands bearing Survey Nos.107, measuring 30 guntas, 108 measuring 2 acres, 111/6 measuring 5 acres and 111/12 measuring 4 acres all are situated at Ramasandra village are not Nursery lands and hence the Hon’ble Court may dispose of the petitions so far as nursery lands are concerned.” It is noticed that the BDA has not recommended deletion of all the items of petition schedule lands from the acquisition proceedings. 2. In view of the memo, it is now for the State Government to pass appropriate orders in the light of the recommendation made by the BDA, in so far as the items of lands mentioned in the memo. The State Government shall expedite consideration and shall pass orders on or before 30th June 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed that the lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. The petitions stand disposed of in terms as above.” 54.2 Order dated 30.4.2014 passed in WP Nos.43467-43468/2012, which reads as under: “Shri C.R.Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel takes notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S Patil, appearing for the Counsel for the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), files status reports, in respect of the lands forming subject matter of the present writ petitions, which reads as follows:- Status Report in W.P.No.43467/2012 “As per court documents given by the petitioner and perusal of the same. The above said lands there exists nursery in the name of “Janata Farm and Nursery”. The above said lands there exists nursery in the name of “Janata Farm and Nursery”. They have not submitted business transactions from PN Date to till date. The case of the petitioners along with the report of the Land Acquisition Section will be examined and accordingly proposal will be sent to the Government for appropriate action.” Status Report in W.P.No.43468/2012 “As per court documents given by the petitioner and perusal of the same. The above said lands there exists nursery in the name of “Rishi Farm and Nursery”. They have not submitted business transactions from PN Date to till date. The case of the petitioners along with the report of the Land Acquisition Section will be examined and accordingly proposal will be sent to the Government for appropriate action.” In view of the Status Reports, it is now for the State Government to pass appropriate orders. The State Government shall expedite consideration and shall pass orders on or before 31st July 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed that the lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. The petitions stand disposed of.” 54.3 Order dated 23.4.2014 passed in WP No.43469/2012, which reads as under: “Shri C.R.Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel takes notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S Patil, appearing for the Counsel for the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), files a status report, in respect of the lands forming subject matter of the present writ petition, which reads as follows:- “As per court direction petitioners have submitted the records, on the perusal of the same in the above said lands there exists nursery in the name of “Teju Farm and Nursery”. They submitted registered ID Card. They have not submitted business transactions from PN date to till date. The case of the petitioners along with the report of the Land Acquisition Section will be examined and accordingly proposal will be sent to the Government for appropriate action.” In view of the Status Report, it is now for the State Government to pass appropriate orders. The State Government shall expedite consideration and shall pass orders on or before 31st July 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed that the lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. The petition stands disposed of.” 55. The State Government shall expedite consideration and shall pass orders on or before 31st July 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed that the lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. The petition stands disposed of.” 55. It is also relevant to note that with regard to nursery lands, the State Government has passed Order bearing No.HUD 478 MNX 86, Bengaluru, dated 1.1.1987 wherein it was ordered as follows: “Government have further examined the request and hereby order that the lands used for nurseries be exempt from Land Acquisition for its developmental schemes by the Bangalore Development Authority. If the owners of these nurseries discontinue to use those lands for nurseries, the lands will be acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority.” 56. Having regard to the aforementioned, it is clear that the State Government has issued notifications under Section 48 of the LA Act denotifying certain lands which were notified for acquisition. In addition, during the pendency of the writ petitions, pursuant to orders passed by the learned Single Judge, spot inspections have been carried out and mahazars have been drawn, consequent to which memos filed by the BDA and the acquisition has been withdrawn in respect of various lands. Amongst the said lands, various lands have been left out from acquisition on the ground that they are nursery lands or where layouts have been formed or where there are revenue sites as also due to various other reasons. 57. While considering the contentions of the writ petitioners that similarly placed lands have been denotified, it is relevant to notice some of the judgments that have been referred to, which are as under: 57.1 Hari Ram & Anr v. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 621 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “40. It is true that any action or order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose by following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition but where the State Government exercises its power under Section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners who are similarly situated have a right of similar treatment by the State Government. Equality of citizens' rights is one of the fundamental pillars on which the edifice of the rule of law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons. 41. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same acquisition proceedings. The State Government cannot pick and choose some landowners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by creating artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of persons similarly situated relating to the same acquisition proceedings and for the same public purpose is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be discriminatory. 42. ………… 43. It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering representations of the appellants by applying the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the same acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State Government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious. The action of the State Government in treating the present appellants differently although they are situated similar to the landowners whose lands have been released can not be countenanced and has to be declared bad in law.” (emphasis supplied) 57.2 BEML Employees House Building Co.op., Society Ltd., v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 9 SCC 248, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case where the land owners have challenged the acquisition proceedings which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court which was also affirmed by the Division Bench. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering a challenge to the same by the beneficiary of acquisition has upheld the judgment of the High Court and held that similarly placed lands have been left out from acquisition based on the recommendation of the land acquisition officer. That the land of the writ petitioners also having been recommended for dropping off the same from acquisition was entitled to the same relief. 57.3 Mrs.Latha U.Kamath & ors. That the land of the writ petitioners also having been recommended for dropping off the same from acquisition was entitled to the same relief. 57.3 Mrs.Latha U.Kamath & ors. V. The Commissioner, Bangalore, ILR 2003 KAR 1604, wherein a Division Bench of this Court was considering a case wherein the writ petitioners were owners of nursery lands which were acquired by the BDA. It was the contention of the writ petitioners that the BDA and the Government having resolved not to acquire nursery lands, the acquisition was required to be quashed. The Division Bench of this Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash & Anr., v. State of U.P and ors., [ 1998 (6) SCC 1 ] refused to quash the acquisition proceedings. However, it ordered as follows: “51. In these circumstances, we direct the appellants to make a representation to the State Government within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order and the State Government shall consider the following matters:— (i) Whether there were any nurseries on the acquired lands at the time of Section 17 notification; (ii) Whether such nurseries were a legally permissible nurseries; (iii) Whether such nurseries have continued to exist till the date of representation; (iv) Whether such nurseries were covered by any government policy (Annexure-G) in force at the time of issuance of Section 17 notification and/or Section 19 notification of the B.D.A. Act 1976 for not acquiring lands having such nurseries; (v) Whether such Government policy (Annexure-G) has continued to be in force till the date of representation. 52. The State Government which is a final authority shall determine these issues and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible on the basis of the representation if possession has not been taken. Pending disposal of the representation, interim orders granted by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the appellants. If no representation is made within the stipulated time the interim orders granted by the earlier Division Benches of this Court shall stand vacated.” 58. Pending disposal of the representation, interim orders granted by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the appellants. If no representation is made within the stipulated time the interim orders granted by the earlier Division Benches of this Court shall stand vacated.” 58. While considering the said contention, it is also relevant to note another contention that was canvassed by the writ petitioners that the Government having resolved not to acquire nursery lands and the BDA having acted upon the said decision by denotifying various nursery lands, the petitioners who are the owners of nursery lands also had a legitimate expectation that their lands also would be denotified. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 691 . 58.1 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand (supra) that the Doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India finds concrete expression. 58.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal supra has held as follows: “14. There is a necessary inter-play between the plea of legitimate expectation and Article 14. For a decision to be non-arbitrary, the reasonable/legitimate expectations of the claimant have to be considered. However, to decide whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context, is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant.” (emphasis supplied) 59. A similar contention is also urged by the writ petitioners whose neighbouring lands have been left out of acquisition, while their lands have been notified. 60. A similar contention is also urged by the writ petitioners whose neighbouring lands have been left out of acquisition, while their lands have been notified. 60. Before passing orders with regard to the aforementioned, it is relevant to note that despite the avowed object with which layouts are formed by the BDA, it has been consistently noticed by this Court that in the manner of implementation of such schemes, the BDA as well as the State Government have repeatedly failed in ensuring that a proper and transparent process by which the grievances of the landlosers and the allottees of the sites are seamlessly addressed. In view of the same, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been constrained to resort to various measures to ensure that the process of acquisition is carried out in accordance with law by the BDA, so that the grievances of the landlosers and allottees are adequately dealt with. 61. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice the rationale, methodology adopted and directions issued by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the acquisitions made by the BDA: 61.1 A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of G.R.Jayamma & ors., v. BDA & Ors., Order dated 20.7.2001 passed in WP No.20875/2001 while upholding the acquisition made by the BDA in respect of Anjanapura Layout has recorded the consensus that was agreed in the said case and held as follows: “9. After the matter was heard further, a broad consensus was reached between petitioners and BDA. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of these cases, petitioners and BDA submitted that these petitions may be disposed of recording the following terms agreed between them:- (a) Petitioners hereby withdraw their objections to the acquisition and assure full support and co-operation to BDA in forming the layout. (b) Petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of sites] Rules, 1984 within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they have agreed not to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement. Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they have agreed not to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement. (c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from to day, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these writ petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA within a period of two months to enable BDA to verify the same. (d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30'x40' in Anjanapura Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules 1984; that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten year domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore (subject to exception as per Rule 10). (e) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment (to enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay]. (f) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioner's title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site. In that event, such petitioners will have pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site. (g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20’x30' sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of lands. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. (h) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification/(and not to GPA/Agreement Holder).” 61.2 A Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Commissioner BDA and Ors., (supra), while upholding the acquisition of the Arkavathi Layout has issued the following directions: “(C) The acquisition of the lands for the formation of Arkavathi Layout is upheld subject to the following conditions:— (a) In so far as the site owners are concerned they are entitled to the following reliefs:— (i) These site owners/writ petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of Sites] Rules, 1984 within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they have agreed not to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement. (ii) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these writ petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA within a period of two months to enable BDA to verify the same. (iii) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30’ × 40’ in Arkavathi Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten year domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore. (iv) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment. [To enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay]. (v) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site. (vi) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20’ × 30’ sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of lands. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. (vii) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement Holders). For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. (vii) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement Holders). (D) In so far as the land owners excluding the site owners, are entitled to the following reliefs:— (i) All the petitioners who are the land owners who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area; (b) they are totally built up; (c) properties wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions (d) nursery lands; (e) who have set-up factories (f) their lands are similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within one month from the date of this order. It is made clear that the BDA shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the land owners whose lands, are notified for acquisition, notified and whose objections were upheld and no final notification is issued. In the event the BDA comes to the conclusion that the lands of those persons are similarly placed, then to exclude those lands from acquisition. (ii) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 30 days from the date of this order and thereafter the BDA shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. (iii) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemption sought for are considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the applications, in the light of the aforesaid directions, if the lands are not excluded then the BDA is at liberty to proceed with the acquisition. After consideration of the applications, in the light of the aforesaid directions, if the lands are not excluded then the BDA is at liberty to proceed with the acquisition. ” 61.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy (supra) while upholding the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court5 has issued the following further directions: “160. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications: (i) In regard to the acquisition of lands in Kempapura and Sriramapura, BDA is directed to reconsider the objections to the acquisitions having regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was also subsequently deleted from acquisition. BDA has to consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent, whether development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. If BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four months before the High Court so that consequential orders could be passed. (ii) In regard to villages of Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and Challakere where there are several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for forming self-contained layouts. The acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a standalone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in a different unconnected lands in other villages. Similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner. The acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a standalone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in a different unconnected lands in other villages. Similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner. (iii) BDA shall give an option to each writ petitioner whose land has been acquired for Arkavathi Layout: (a) to accept allotment of 15% (fifteen per cent) of the land acquired from him, by way of developed plots, in lieu of compensation (any fractions in excess of 15% may be charged prevailing rates of allotment); OR (b) in cases where the extent of land acquired exceeds half an acre, to claim in addition to compensation (without prejudice to seek reference if he is not satisfied with the quantum), allotment of a plot measuring 30’ × 40’ for every half acre of land acquired at the prevailing allotment price. (iv) Any allotment made by BDA, either by forming layouts or by way of bulk allotments, will be subject to the above.” 61.4 This Court in the case of Junjamma & Ors.,(supra) upheld the acquisition of Vishveshwaraiah Layout subject to the following conditions: “1. The challenge to the acquisition in all these Writ Petitions fails and is accordingly rejected. The acquisition is upheld subject the following conditions. (a) The petitioners in W.P. Nos. …………. who are all owners of sites in question which are acquired are entitled to the following: (b) These petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of sites] Rules, 1984, within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they are not entitled to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement. (c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same. (c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same. (d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30’ × 40’ in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore. (e) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites-which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment [to enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay]. (f) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site. (g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20’ × 30’ sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of Land. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. (g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20’ × 30’ sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of Land. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. (h) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement Holders). (i) It is left to the discretion of the authorities also to consider the case of GPA Holders/Agreement Holders and persons who are claiming on the basis of affidavits the sites in question though they are not entitled to the same as a matter of right, only if they belong to weaker sections, poor and down-trodden. (j) The Authorities shall also consider whether these petitioners have purchased the sites by way of investment or with the intention of having a roof over their head and based on the said consideration, to pass appropriate orders, in the light of the observations made in this order. 2(a). All the petitioners who are the land owners who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for non agricultural use; (d) garden land and nursery lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational institutions and factories; (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within three months from the date of this order. (b) It is made clear that the authority shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the land owners whose objections were upheld to the extent of 357 acres 25 guntas and in respect of those lands no final notification is issued. (c) In the event the Authority come to the conclusion that those persons are similarly placed, then to denotify their lands and exclude them from acquisition. (3) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 90 days from the date of this order and thereafter the authority shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. (4) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Authority and the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemption sought for are considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the application in the light of the aforesaid directions, the Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition. ” 62. Despite the detailed directions issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Commissioner BDA and Ors., (supra), and a few additional directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy, (supra) , the same was not followed, which has resulted in this Court in the case of Sri K.P.Anjanappa (supra) appointing a Committee of three members and issuing various directions. 63. At this juncture, the observations made by this Court while considering the acquisitions made by the BDA are required to be noticed: 63.1 A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sri Gangaiah Naidu, by his L.Rs., v. The BDA, rep.by its Commissioner & Anr., ILR 2010 KAR 1794 while considering a situation where the levy of betterment tax was issued in respect of the lands that were denotified has observed as follows: “64. The three resolutions referred to supra by which the BDA has resolved to levy betterment tax clearly exposes the callousness with which this power of acquisition is exercised by the Government and Authority to formulate a scheme of providing residential sites to needy citizens. The law is observed more in breach. It clearly demonstrates not only blissful ignorance of laws but also scant respect of the law. It clearly points out the shortcomings in the preparation of the scheme by the BDA in the first instance. It is obvious that before notifying the land for acquisition, proper attention is not given to find out the existing position. It clearly demonstrates not only blissful ignorance of laws but also scant respect of the law. It clearly points out the shortcomings in the preparation of the scheme by the BDA in the first instance. It is obvious that before notifying the land for acquisition, proper attention is not given to find out the existing position. i.e., if, in the land which falls within the scheme, whether already buildings have come up and people are residing, and what are the developmental activities which has taken place. Though power to acquire is not disputed, the said power before it is exercised should be exercised with more care and caution. The law provides for levy of betterment charges in respect of those properties which fall within the scheme and which is going to be affected by the development of a layout by the BDA and provides for levy of betterment tax after hearing such land owners. The said procedure is rarely followed by the BDA. On the contrary even those developed land or buildings are included in the scheme and notified for acquisition. When objections are filed pointing out the said facts instead of giving relief to such deserving persons, in most of the cases they are denied the relief to which they are entitled to in law. On the contrary, the lands where there is no development at all are dropped from acquisition, obviously for extraneous consideration. Money, power, nearness to the seat of power and a host of other factors come into full play behind the scene for dropping the acquisition proceedings. In fact, a new breed of professionals, as a class, have come into existence who have specialized in the art of getting the lands denotified from acquisition proceedings. Politicians, bureaucrats, land mafia and other professionals are all partners in this lucrative enterprise. That is how in Bangalore, next to IT industry, this real estate business is the most attractive and lucrative business resulting in people who are nothing in real life have become stinking rich and powerful overnight. Thanks to real estate business. The money from this business has spread its tentacles in all walks of life, thus polluting the health and culture of the society. Thanks to real estate business. The money from this business has spread its tentacles in all walks of life, thus polluting the health and culture of the society. After considering the objections, when the scheme is submitted by the BDA to the Government for approval, hardly there is any application of mind by the Government while according sanction to the scheme. It is almost automatic and mechanical. The affected persons have no say in the matter at that stage. Their elected representatives are no better. If really the recommendation made by the BDA is flawless, they have considered all genuine objections and their recommendation is based on merit and the Government do not find any justification to reconsider and interfere with the said recommendation, after according sanction to the scheme, the Government should see that the scheme is implemented in letter and spirit But, unfortunately in reality the conduct of the Government is otherwise. After the Government accords sanction to the scheme, a final Notification is issued making known the intention to acquire the land, as the Government has accorded sanction. Then a spate of requests are made to the Government for denotification of the land. Without any reason or rhyme, again for extraneous consideration, at the instance of the professionals who again become active behind the scene, indiscriminately land's are denotified. Obviously, again it is for a price which is not accounted anywhere.” (emphasis supplied) 63.2 This Court in the case of Junjamma & Ors., (supra) has noticed as follows: “56. The concern shown by this Court for the poor, needy, downtrodden and economically weaker sections of the society should not be construed as a license to allot sites to all the persons who have purchased sites in the approved and unapproved layouts and in revenue plots. Here it is emphasized that a distinction has to be made between persons who are struggling to have a roof over their head for shelter and persons who are speculators and who have purchased sites by way of investments. It could be easily made out from the sale deeds. If sites are purchased in the name of a family members minors and persons who are not residents of Bangalore and who are residing in other parts of the country, certainly there is no obligation cast upon the authority to allot sites in lieu of such sales. It could be easily made out from the sale deeds. If sites are purchased in the name of a family members minors and persons who are not residents of Bangalore and who are residing in other parts of the country, certainly there is no obligation cast upon the authority to allot sites in lieu of such sales. It would be a just exercise of discretion to award them compensation for the sites acquired. In this regard every care should be taken to scrutinize each sale deed by the officials concerned and keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in these Writ Petitions and terms of the order in respect of Anjanapura layout and see to it that the benefit conferred under this judgment is not misused, abused and misinterpreted. If persons who are entitled to allotment of sites are denied the sites and persons who are not entitled to sites are granted sites, and if any person were to approach this Court with the aforesaid complaint certainly this Court would view the matter very seriously and the concerned official who has been vested with the power to process claims could be held personally liable for all the consequences flowing therefrom. The experiences gained should lead the Authority to prompt action being taken in future to avoid repetition of similar situation so that there could be an orderly development of the beautiful city of Bangalore, and the land grabbers and speculators are kept at bay and innocent people are not lured into such helpless situations.” (emphasis supplied) 64. It is also relevant to note that while undertaking the process of acquisition of lands the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the process of leaving out certain lands or de-notifying certain lands are part of the process as contemplated under the Act when the acquisition is undertaken. However, it is also relevant to note that the obligation is on the State to act fairly while leaving out the lands from acquisition or issuing notifications for denotification of the lands. It is not open to the authorities of the State to pass different orders in respect of persons who are similarly placed. 65. However, it is also relevant to note that the obligation is on the State to act fairly while leaving out the lands from acquisition or issuing notifications for denotification of the lands. It is not open to the authorities of the State to pass different orders in respect of persons who are similarly placed. 65. While considering cases where similarly placed lands have been left out, it is relevant to note that at the time of filing objections to the preliminary notification, the land owners would have placed on record as to the nature of the land and as to why the said land ought not to be acquired. The said objections after being considered, the final notification has been passed. While it is the contention of the writ petitioners that their objections have not been properly considered, and the BDA seeks to justify their action of notifying the lands for acquisition, it is relevant to note that, the petitioners have now placed on record various notifications wherein lands have been de-notified as also various instances wherein the BDA has given up lands from acquisition. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that they are similarly placed as persons whose lands have been de-notified / left out of acquisition, could not have been put forth or considered when the land owners filed their objection to the acquisition. Hence, the said aspect is required to be considered having regard to the said material on record, which exercise this Court cannot undertake under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As has been done earlier by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the authorities are required to examine the objections of the land owners for exclusion of their properties from acquisition in light of the contention of the Petitioners that similarly placed lands have been de-notified / left out from acquisition. The authorities will necessarily have to take into consideration factors / material on the basis of which the objections of some land owners were upheld and their lands were denotified / left out of acquisition, while considering the cases of the present writ petitioners. If the said lands are similarly placed, the authorities are bound to give the same benefit. If not, it is open to the authorities to reject their objections and proceed further in the matter. 66. If the said lands are similarly placed, the authorities are bound to give the same benefit. If not, it is open to the authorities to reject their objections and proceed further in the matter. 66. With regard to site owners, this Court while considering the peculiar problems of persons of city of Bengaluru with regard to needs for housing and having regard to the said need emanating from the persons belonging to economically weak and backward communities as well as various other factors and considering the possible solution and also noticing what was done in the case of Anjanapura Layout, has held as follows: 52. …………. Here I would like to suggest that in the given case if the Authority is satisfied that though some of the petitioners do not possess a registered sale deed or they have acquired title to the land after preliminary notifications or claiming right under power of attorney or any other mode other than by way of a registered sale deed if such persons belonged to weaker sections, economically backward, poor in their discretion the same benefit may also be extended to them. 53. Similarly, if a layout has already been formed with approval of some authority or if a pucca layout is formed even without such approval if it is of the specifications prescribed under the BDA Act itself and if the said layouts could be harmonized or mingled with the layout to be formed by the BDA as far as possible every attempt should be made to synchronize the said layouts with the BDA layout and if it is possible to allot the very same sites to the petitioners and in particular to those who have already put up construction and living there. That would be the best way of solving this human and housing problem. However, if those sites or constructions come in the way of layout formation, it is open to the authorities to disturb the possession of the occupants of the said sites and buildings and allot a site in the layout to be formed by them. All these suggestions are made only with the fond hope of minimizing the hardship to those site owners, to reduce the cost of forming a layout and the heart burn is likely to cause. The same cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any of the petitioners.” (emphasis supplied) 67. All these suggestions are made only with the fond hope of minimizing the hardship to those site owners, to reduce the cost of forming a layout and the heart burn is likely to cause. The same cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any of the petitioners.” (emphasis supplied) 67. Hence, while considering the objections of the site owners, the authorities are required to keep in mind the observations made in para 66 hereinabove. 68. The observations made by this Court in the case of Gangaiah (supra) and Junjamma & Ors., (supra), as noticed in para 63 hereinabove are merely two instances wherein, this Court has repeatedly, after noticing the manner in which the acquisition process is carried out has emphasized the yardstick that is required to be adopted while implementing the process of acquisition, keeping in mind the main purpose with which acquisition of lands are sought to be done i.e., to provide housing to the needy and deprived sections of society. Hence, the BDA and the State Government are required to take abundant care and caution in ensuring that the directions of this Court are implemented in letter and in spirit, in a manner to sub-serve the interest with which the acquisition is initiated in the first place and also while considering the lands to be acquired and the allotment of sites, the interest of the poor, needy, downtrodden and economically weaker sections of the society should be the paramount consideration. 69. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER : i) The above appeals filed by the BDA are allowed; ii) The order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions is set aside. 69. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER : i) The above appeals filed by the BDA are allowed; ii) The order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions is set aside. The orders passed in writ petitions which are decided placing reliance on the order dated 11.7.2014 passed in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions are also set aside; iii) The preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/ COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009, Bangalore, dated 21.5.2008 and the final notification bearing No. UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore, dated 18.2.2010 issued for acquisition of lands for the formation of the “Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout” are upheld subject to the following conditions: a) With regard to the land owners (excluding the site owners): i) All the land owners/writ petitioners who are seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition on the ground that their lands are (1) nursery lands; (2) situated within green belt; (3) totally built up; (4) that the buildings are constructed by religious/charitable educational institutions; (5) that similar adjoining lands have been either left out from acquisition or de-notified, are permitted to make an application to the BDA seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition by producing all such material that they deem fit/necessary in support of their applications within 3 months from today; (ii) The BDA shall consider each of the said application/s keeping in mind the status of the lands as on the date of the preliminary notification and without taking into consideration any developments / improvements / constructions made subsequent to the preliminary notification; iii) The BDA shall complete the exercise of considering the applications of the writ petitioners and deciding on the same within an outer limit of six months from today; iv) The BDA, upon consideration of the applications shall intimate the writ petitioners about its decision; v) If the BDA is of the opinion that the acquisition will have to be proceeded with, the BDA is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law; b) Insofar as the site owners who have not made an application as contemplated in para (iii)(a) hereinabove: i) They shall register themselves for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 within three months from today by paying the registration fee. However, payment of initial deposit by them is exempted. However, payment of initial deposit by them is exempted. The necessary documents along with the said applications are also to be filed to enable the BDA to verify the same; ii) The BDA shall treat the applicants as being entitled for priority allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30x40 feet in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout at the prevailing allotment prices subject to the applicants satisfying the dual requirements of allotment under the Rules that they must be the residents of Bengaluru (for 10 years) and should not be owning any residential property in Bengaluru; iii) In case the applicants/writ petitioners do not fulfill the requirements for allotment under the Rules, 1984 they may be considered for allotment of 20x30 feet sites as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989; c) Insofar as the owners of residential sites who form part of a layout and who have sought for dropping their lands from acquisition in accordance with para (iii)(a) hereinabove, the BDA shall consider the same having regard to the observations made at para 66 hereinabove. If the BDA rejects their applications, the site owners who have first filed applications pursuant to para (iii)(a) hereinabove, shall be entitled to a further period of one month after the decision as contemplated therein is intimated to opt to and apply in the manner as contemplated in para (iii)(b) hereinabove. iv) Till the aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the writ petitioners, either for allotment of sites or for dropping of the lands from acquisition are considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. v) In view of the allowing of the above appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.