JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. The Writ Appeal No.715/2022 is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2370/2015 dated 05.07.2021 while Writ Appeal No.752/2022 is filed against the judgment dated 06.01.2021 in Writ Petition No.33142/2017. 2. In Writ Appeal No.715/2022 arising out of the judgment in Writ Petition No.2370/2015, the property in question was bearing Sy.No.9 measuring 27 guntas of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The Writ Petitioners prayed for a declaration that the scheme of BTM 6 th Stage Layout Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 and the Final Notification dated 28.07.1990 insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1987, (for short 'BDA Act') read with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short). 3. Writ Appeal No.752/2022 arises out of the judgment in Writ Petition No.33142/2017, the property in question was bearing Sy.No.21/1C5 measuring 35 guntas of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The Writ Petitioners prayed to declare the scheme of acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in Sy. No.21/1C5, measuring 35 guntas situated at Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk insofar as it pertains to the lands of the petitioner is concerned is deemed to have lapsed by operation of Section 27 of the BDA Act read with Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and consequently to quash the Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification in so far as it pertains to the land of petitioners. 4. We have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant - BDA as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 5. The facts which are necessary for a consideration of these appeals are as follows:- A Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act on 08.09.1987 for the formation of BTM 6 th Stage Layout. Thereafter, a Final Notification was issued on 28.07.1990. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/BDA in W.A.No.715/2022 that a spot inspection was conducted by the officials of the Engineering Division of the BDA on 25.02.1991. On 12.07.1993, a claim petition claiming compensation was filed and an award was passed on 16.06.1994. Thereafter, a Final Notification was issued on 28.07.1990. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/BDA in W.A.No.715/2022 that a spot inspection was conducted by the officials of the Engineering Division of the BDA on 25.02.1991. On 12.07.1993, a claim petition claiming compensation was filed and an award was passed on 16.06.1994. It is contended that the award was approved on 30.06.1994 and Section 12(2) notices were issued to the khatedars as well as the claimant for the compensation. But the same was returned as refused. It is further contended that on 11.07.1994 and 13.07.1994 respectively, possession of the property was taken over by drawing a mahazar and the property was handed over to the Engineering Section on 13.07.1994. 7. It is contended that Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 30.08.1994 and on 27.09.1995 and 05.10.1995, the award amount was sent to the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Thereafter, it is contended that reference was numbered as LAC No.29/90-91 and a suit in O.S.No.5913/2005 was filed before the City Civil Court claiming rights in the property in question. The said suit was dismissed on 21.10.2010 and thereafter W.P.No.2370/2015 was filed which was also dismissed on 02.07.2015. The said judgment was taken up in an appeal in Writ Appeal No.113-116/2016 and the writ petition was allowed and matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge to hear the writ petition. 8. In Writ Appeal No.752/2022, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the writ petitioners had purchased the property only by sale deed dated 05.06.1992. It is also contended that there was a suit filed by the writ petitioners against their vendors as O.S.No.1747/2009, which was compromised in favour of the writ petitioners. The appellants had contended that pursuant to the Final Notification dated 28.07.1990, an award was approved and issued on 27.04.2000 and the amount was deposited in the Civil Court on 12.01.2001. The possession was taken and handed over to the Engineering Section on 27.05.2000. A Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also issued on 13.10.2006. The copies of the Mahazar, the award, deposit details etc, were produced as Annexures-R1 to R4 along with the Statement of Objections. The possession was taken and handed over to the Engineering Section on 27.05.2000. A Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also issued on 13.10.2006. The copies of the Mahazar, the award, deposit details etc, were produced as Annexures-R1 to R4 along with the Statement of Objections. It is contended that the petitioners, who were purchasers after the Final Notification had been issued have no locus standi to file the writ petition. It is contended that the writ petition was filed after nearly 30 years of the acquisition being notified and that it is hopelessly belated. 9. After considering the contentions advanced on both sides, the learned Singe Judge held that there was no legal or acceptable evidence in either of the cases to show that the BDA had taken possession of the schedule property from the petitioners. In Writ Petition No.2370/2015, the fact that the revenue records continued showing the name of the petitioners was specifically taken note of. It was also found that the Mahazar relied on by the BDA was completely unreliable. Further, since only 31 acres out of 389.09 acres notified were actually formed into the Layout. The scheme was held to have not been substantially implemented and was treated as abandoned and lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. 10. Accepting the doctrine of parity with several earlier decisions with regard to adjacent lands under the same Notification, the learned Single Judge held that the BTM 6 th Stage Scheme had been declared to have lapsed and that the benefits must extend to the petitioners' lands also. Consequently, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, quashed the Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 and the Final Notification dated 28.07.1990 and all proceedings pursuant thereto insofar as it related to the petitioners properties. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in view of the fact that an award was passed and possession had been taken over by the appellants, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the acquisition stood lapsed as far as the property of the petitioners are concerned is completely untenable. It is further contended that the judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge would also make no difference to the situation. It is an admitted fact that the layout had been formed at least in part. It is further contended that the judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge would also make no difference to the situation. It is an admitted fact that the layout had been formed at least in part. It is therefore contended that since the layout had been formed, the learned Single Judge ought to have found that the property had been taken possession of and the fact that no sites were formed in the property by itself would not support the contention of the petitioners that the possession of the property had not been taken over. It is further contended that even if the layout has not been formed, the acquisition would survive and once the vesting is complete, there can be no question of returning the property to the land losers. It is contended that the continued possession after the vesting is complete is to be equated to trespass and can confer no rights. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following judgments:- Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bengaluru Development Authority & Ors., by reported in (2011) 3 SCC 139; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., by reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 ; 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would, on the other hand, contend that the factual aspects of the matter have been clearly considered by the learned Single Judge. The BDA had not taken possession of the land in question which remains in the possession of the private respondents and the acquisition should be held to have lapsed in respect of the property. It is submitted that though a large extent of land was notified for acquisition for the BTM 6 th Stage, it has been factually found in several litigations that the Layout has been formed only in about 38 acres of property, that is, less than one tenth of the extent notified. It is clearly found that in the absence of acceptable material to show that the award has been passed and possession has been taken over in accordance with law, the BDA who had not formed the layout or taken possession of the property in accordance with law or deposited the compensation, cannot raise any claims since the respondents continued to be in possession of the property without any interference whatsoever. It is further contended that since only a small part of the layout had been formed, it was upto the BDA to produce material to show that the layout had been formed at least in the vicinity of the property of the petitioners to substantiate its contention that the possession of the property had been taken over. It is submitted that the drawing up of a mahazar, by itself, cannot give any right to the BDA to contend that possession had actually been taken over specially in the light of the findings of fact in several judgments which are relied on in the judgment under appeal itself in support of the contention that the layout had been formed only in a minuscule portion of the property, which was notified for acquisition. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following judgments:- Bengaluru Development Authority & Anr. v. Sri. Honnappa and Another, passed in SLA(C) No.19776/2019; The Commissioner & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, by order dated 17.11.2025 passed in W.A.No.756/2021; Honnappa v. State of Karnataka and Others, by Order dated 18.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.55991/2015 (LA-BDA) Bangalore Development Authority and Another v. Sri. Honnappa and Another, by Order dated 16.08.2018 passed in W.A.No.6936/2017 (LA-BDA) 15. We have considered the contentions advanced in detail with reference to the pleadings and the materials produced. We find that several cases, this Court had considered the acquisition for the very same Scheme and had come to the conclusion that the Scheme had been partly implemented only in a fraction of the land notified for acquisition. The BDA itself had stated in their objections that the Preliminary Notification proposed to acquire land to the extent of 805 acres and 21 guntas. Subsequently, Final Notification had been issued only in respect of 338 acres and 9 guntas. Even out of the properties so notified, this Court in several writ petitions had found that the layout was formed in only about 38 acres of land and the remaining extent of land had continued in the possession of the landowners. Relying on various judgments of this Court, it was found that the acquisition had lapsed in respect of several adjoining properties as well. Relying on various judgments of this Court, it was found that the acquisition had lapsed in respect of several adjoining properties as well. It was specifically found by the learned Single Judge that the BDA had not produced any legal or acceptable evidence to show that the possession of the schedule property was taken from the petitioners. The RTCs proved that the possession of the property had continued with the petitioners. Further, though a report dated 27.05.2000 was produced as Annexure R3 to contend that the possession was handed over to the Engineering Department, the document was found to be not reliable. It was also found that the 16(2) Notification dated 13.10.2006 was issued 16 years after the Final Notification and that no reliance could be placed on the same. It was found that the adjacent lands which were the subject matter of writ petitions before this Court had all been found to be excluded from the acquisition and the materials produced therefore would not show that the layout had been formed in the vicinity of the writ petitioners' property. 16. The learned standing counsel appearing for the BDA would contend that since an award had been passed and possession had been taken, the acquisition could not be held to be lapsed even if the layout had not been formed. It is contended that even in such cases, the Apex Court has held that the acquisition once complete, the land vests with the State and the acquisition cannot be said to have lapsed. We are of the opinion that since the State has raised no such contentions and no writ appeal is also preferred by the State, the said contentions cannot be taken by the BDA. The BDA has not produced any reliable material to show that the possession of the property had been taken over by the BDA in pursuance to the Final Notification issued in the year 1990. Further, though several opportunities were given to the BDA, to produce materials to show that the layout had been formed in the vicinity of the petitioner's property, so that the contention that the property in question was a Reserved Civic Amenity Site could be considered. No such material has been produced by the BDA in the instant case. Further, though several opportunities were given to the BDA, to produce materials to show that the layout had been formed in the vicinity of the petitioner's property, so that the contention that the property in question was a Reserved Civic Amenity Site could be considered. No such material has been produced by the BDA in the instant case. Further, the writ appeal filed in respect of an adjacent property which was listed along with these appeals and where identical contentions had been taken and has been dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the BDA. 17. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised in this appeal cannot be considered favourably. We find no error in the adjudication by the learned Single Judge. This is more so specifically in view of the fact that the acquisition in respect of several adjoining properties had been considered by the learned Single Judge and also in the light of the dismissal of the connected writ appeal which was listed along with these appeals as withdrawn by Order dated 17.11.2025 in W.A.No.756/2021 (LA-BDA). The BDA cannot take contradictory stands in cases where identical contentions have been raised. 18. Accordingly, the writ appeals fail and the same are dismissed Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of in both the matters.