ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners who claim through their family lineage as the legal heirs of the original khatedar of Sy No. 99/5 represented through a power of attorney holder, seeking a declaration that the acquisition initiated under the preliminary notification dated 06.08.1988 followed by the final notification dated 03.11.1990 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’) has lapsed, primarily on the ground that the scheme has not been implemented within the statutory period under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short) and that the physical possession has never been taken nor compensation paid. 2. The land bearing Sy. No. 99/5 measuring 13 guntas situated at Bilekanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, (‘petition land’) originally belonged to Ramakka devolved upon her children and grandchildren and later the petitioners succeeded to the property through inheritance. The petition land was notified for acquisition under the scheme called ‘Byrasandra- Tavarkere-Madivala IV Stage Layout’ (‘BTM Layout IV Stage Scheme’). The petitioners assert that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid and the scheme has not been substantially executed even after several decades. The revenue records of 2015-16 continues to show the petitioners name and the mahazar relied by the respondents 2 and 3 is said to be defective. They rely upon several similarly placed lands that have been declared lapsed by this Court and where the very same notifications and schemes were held to be abandoned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3/BDA. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the entire acquisition has lapsed because (i) The scheme has not been substantially implemented within 5 years from the date of declaration as required under Section 27 of the BDA Act. (ii) No possession was taken and compensation has not been tendered or paid. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the entire acquisition has lapsed because (i) The scheme has not been substantially implemented within 5 years from the date of declaration as required under Section 27 of the BDA Act. (ii) No possession was taken and compensation has not been tendered or paid. (iii) Several identical matters involving the same notification dated 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990 have been quashed by this Court and affirmed by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as under : (a) Krishna Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Others , W.P 804 of 2016 D.D.05.08.2019 (Krishna Reddy), where the notifications of 1988 and 1990 were quashed, acquisition declared abandoned, affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal 741 of 2021 and again by the Apex Court in SLP 46466 of 2024. (b) Huchamma vs. State of Karnataka and Others, WP 21831 of 2016, D.D. 15.09.2017 (Huchamma). The acquisition was quashed by placing reliance on Aligarh Development Authority vs. Megh Singh and Others , AIR 2016 SC 2912 (Megh Singh) stating that it was the obligation of the acquiring body to tender the amount of compensation to the land loser and observing that the payment of compensation was not tendered or paid, the conduct on the part of the beneficiary would tantamount to abandonment of acquisition. The Division Bench dismissed the BDA's Appeal in W.A.3884/2019 on delay and merits holding that compensation was never paid and, possession was never taken. The said decision was affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP 21136 of 2021. (c) Shanthamma and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others , WP 41386-395 of 2017, D.D 24.09.2019 (Shanthamma) relied upon the same line of cases and held that the scheme lapsed and the acquisition was abandoned. Writ Appeal 398 of 2021 preferred by the BDA came to be dismissed, affirmed in SLP 38201 of 2023. (d) Gowramma vs. State of Karnataka and Others, WP 62545 of 2016, D.D.10.08.2017 (Gowramma) Similar view was taken, acquisition was abandoned and scheme lapsed. Writ Appeal 851 of 2022 preferred by the BDA came to be dismissed and judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. SLP 50258 of 2023 came to be affirmed. 5. Thus would contend that the series of binding judgments, the very same notifications dated 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990 were quashed by this Court. 6. Writ Appeal 851 of 2022 preferred by the BDA came to be dismissed and judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. SLP 50258 of 2023 came to be affirmed. 5. Thus would contend that the series of binding judgments, the very same notifications dated 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990 were quashed by this Court. 6. The petitioners also rely upon Nagu Bai vs. State of Karnataka , ILR 2001 KAR 1169 (Nagu Bai) to argue that the delay in award and non-payment of compensation results in lapse and that they are not purchasers under any agreement of sale, but are claiming through inheritance. Therefore, objections of locus standi is unfounded. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petition is filed through a power of attorney holder allegedly under post notification sale agreements dated 2013 and 2015 and therefore the petitioners lack locus standi, they further contend that the power of attorney and the agreements violate Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 (‘Act, 1991 for short). It is contended that the award was passed on 24.05.1999, compensation was deposited in an RD account and therefore the land stands vested with BDA. Learned counsel rely upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal and Others , AIR 2020 SC 1496 (Indore Development Authority) and Offshore Holdings Private Ltd. vs Bangalore Development Authority and Others , (2011) 3 SCC 139 (Offshore Holdings Private Ltd.) to argue that once the award is passed and vesting occurs, neither the scheme lapses nor non-implementation can undo the acquisition or divest the authority. They contend that the BTM IV stage has been substantially implemented and therefore no lapse arises. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shiv Kumar and Others vs Union of India , Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2019, D.D.14.10.2019 (Shiv Kumar) particularly para No. 18 to contend that the post notification purchaser cannot challenge acquisition. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions as urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions as urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Having heard them, the points that arises for consideration are, (i) whether the petitioners have made out any legally sustainable ground to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 have lapsed, despite (a) Section 27 dealing only with lapsing of scheme and not the acquisition; (b) The settled proposition of law that Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act, 2013’ for short) does not apply to BDA acquisition, and (c) The distinction consistently drawn by the Apex Court and this Court between lapse of scheme and lapsing/abandonment of the ‘acquisition’. (ii) And whether the decisions in the earlier identical BTM IV stage matters would apply to the present facts. 11. On considering the material on record this Court finds that the petitioners are the original legal heirs of the owner, the GPA holder represents them and does not derive any independent title, hence the objection that the petitioners’ locus is unsustainable. Section 27 of the BDA Act applies when the layout scheme is not substantially implemented within 5 years of final notification. This only affects the scheme and not the acquisition. Earlier Co- ordinate Bench judgments in Krishna Reddy, Huchamma, Shantamma and Gauramma (supra) repeatedly held that both the scheme had lapsed and the acquisition itself abandoned, primarily based on factual findings that (i). compensation was never tendered/paid and (ii). possession was never taken. These findings were affirmed by the Division Bench and by the Apex Court. The law is well settled that the Act, 2013, does not apply to acquisitions under special statutes such as BDA Act, since the BDA Act is a self-contained Code for planned development and does not adapt the 2013, Act by reference. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that lapse under Section 24 sub-clause 2 of the 2013, Act is not available to the petitioner. Even though Section 24 (2) does not apply, this Court must consider whether on facts the acquisition stands abandoned. The materials show that the compensation was never paid or tendered and merely kept in BDA's RD account. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that lapse under Section 24 sub-clause 2 of the 2013, Act is not available to the petitioner. Even though Section 24 (2) does not apply, this Court must consider whether on facts the acquisition stands abandoned. The materials show that the compensation was never paid or tendered and merely kept in BDA's RD account. The Apex Court in Megh Singh (supra) has held at para number 11 and 12 as under : “11. Statement of objection is silent with regard to the payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the BDA submits at the bar that compensation has been kept in revenue deposit of the BDA itself. As held by the Apex Court in the case of ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MEGH SINGH & OTHERS – AIR 2016 SC 2912 , it is the obligation of the acquiring body to tender the amount of compensation to the land loser. If the compensation is not tendered or paid, it will not satisfy the requirement of payment of compensation so as to complete the acquisition proceeding. In this case, the BDA after passing the award has not thought it fit to take over possession of land, form layout in the land in question, let alone paying compensation to the land owner. Therefore, so far as land in question is concerned, the BDA has abandoned the acquisition. Land owner has to be paid compensation before or at the time when possession of the land is taken. 12. After the award is passed, if there is any dispute with regard to entitlement of compensation or apportionment thereof, then, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to refer the matter to the Civil Court and deposit the amount of compensation before the Court as required under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, which are applicable even to the acquisitions made under the provisions of the BDA Act. Such procedure has not been followed in this case. Therefore, the BDA has consciously chosen not to take possession of the land, pay compensation or form layout in the land belonging to petitioner which is the subject matter in the present writ petition. It is not the case of BDA that it has formed the layout and allotted sites to third parties. Therefore, the irresistible inference is that BDA has abandoned the acquisition with regard to these lands.” 12. It is not the case of BDA that it has formed the layout and allotted sites to third parties. Therefore, the irresistible inference is that BDA has abandoned the acquisition with regard to these lands.” 12. The decision placed reliance by the respondents 2 and 3 on Shiv Kumar (supra) is misplaced and not applicable to the present facts. However, Shiv Kumar's case applies only where (i) award has been validly passed within time, (ii) compensation has been tendered or paid, (iii) possession has been taken i.e. where the acquisition has attained finality. The Apex Court itself clarified that post notification purchases stand barred only in those cases where acquisition is complete in law. In the present case, consistent findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in Krishna Reddy, Huchamma, Shantamma and Gowramma are all relating to the same scheme i.e., BTM IV Stage and the same notification dated 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990 have been categorically held that compensation was not paid, (b) possession was not taken and (c) award amount was kept only in internal R.D. account and (d) the scheme itself was abandoned, which findings came to be affirmed by the Division Bench and in several SLPs. 13. There are no documentary evidence produced by the BDA of actual physical possession, except a defective mahazar, which has been already considered and held not acceptable in Gowramma (supra). The RTC continues in the petitione’rs name. In identical matters involving the same notification, the same scheme, same village, this Court has consistently held that the acquisition stood abandoned and all the judgments of the co-ordinate bench are affirmed in multiple SLPs. Thus, though Section 24(2) of 2013, Act is inapplicable, the factual situation is indistinguishable from Krishna Reddy, Huchamma, Shanthamma and Gowrama's (supra) , where the Court held that the acquisition itself has been abandoned and unenforceable. Given the repeated judicial findings in the same BTM IV Stage scheme, the absence of possession, absence of compensation payment and the long inaction of 35 years, this Court holds that the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, and the acquisition, though not automatically lapsed under Section 24(2), stands abandoned in fact and unenforceable in law as held in the identical matters stated supra. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the points framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following : ORDER (a) The Writ Petition is allowed. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the points framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following : ORDER (a) The Writ Petition is allowed. (b) The preliminary notification dated 06.08.1988 and the final notification dated 03.11.1990 insofar as they relate to the land bearing Sy. No. 99/5 measuring 13 guntas situated at Bilekanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, are hereby quashed. It is declared that the scheme for which the acquisition was initiated has lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act on account of non- implementation within the statutory period. (c) It is further declared that in view of the admitted fact situation that physical possession was never taken, compensation was neither paid nor tendered and the petitioner continued to remain in lawful possession, the acquisition proceedings to the extent they relate to the petition schedule property stands vitiated and cannot be enforced.