ORDER : 1. Petitioners claiming to be the owners of land in Sy.No.21/2 admeasuring 2 acres 8 guntas situated at Kothnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as “ the Subject Land”) are before this Court seeking following reliefs: "I. Call for the entire records from the respondent: II. Issue an appropriate order, writ declaring the scheme J.P. Nagar 8 th Phase Bangalore envisaged under preliminary Notification bearing No.BDA/SLAO/A6/PR/229/87-88 dated 23.03.1988 as per Annexure-A and Final Notification bearing No. HUD/292/MNX/93, dated 19.10.1994 as per Annexure-B issued by the 1 st respondent, so far as the property of the petitioner, applying the provisions of section 27 of BDA Act be declared as lapsed. ii(a) Declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of BDA Act 1976 for the JP Nagar, 8 th stage as lapsed on account of failure to implement the same within 5 years as contemplated under section 27 and consequently there is no vesting of land. III. Grant such other relief, as deemed fit, by this Hon'ble Court in facts and circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of the petition, in the interest of justice and equity". 2. Petitioners had originally sought for quashing of aforesaid preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988 and final notification dated 19.10.1994 as illegal, void ab initio on the grounds of same having lapsed and abandoned in view of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which was deleted and substituted by the aforesaid prayers by way of amendment vide order dated 12.10.2022. 3. The case of the petitioners is that: (a) the subject land originally belonged to one Sri.Gullappa who had purchased the same in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 29.09.1967 from one Smt.Papamma. The said Sri.Gullappa was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his demise on 12.05.2000. Thereafter the aforesaid property was inherited by the petitioners being his legal heirs. (b) That the respondent-BDA sought to acquire the subject land in terms of the Preliminary Notification dated 23.03.1988 followed by Final Notification dated 19.10.1994 for the purpose of formation of residential layout known and called as "Jayaprakash Narayan Nagar 8 th Stage". That under the preliminary notification respondent-BDA had proposed to acquire in all an extent of 1009 acres and 14 guntas of land. That under the preliminary notification respondent-BDA had proposed to acquire in all an extent of 1009 acres and 14 guntas of land. After deletion, the aforesaid final notification was issued to an extent of 958 acres 15 guntas of land. That a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (LA Act), read with Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Act (BDA Act) has been issued on 02.09.2012 stating that possession of certain lands mentioned in the said notification had been taken on the respective dates mentioned therein. That the said notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued without notice to the petitioners as such the same is unenforceable and inoperative and is thus void ab initio. (c) That the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and at no point of time physical possession of the same had been taken by the respondent-BDA. The mahazar drawn and relied upon by the respondent-BDA is not reliable as the same does not contain the particulars of persons who were witness to the same. That the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.13618-13620 and 13621-13623/2014 had quashed the aforesaid acquisition proceedings in respect of portion of the property in Sy.No.21/2 subject matter of this writ petition. (d) That the respondent-BDA has neither paid the compensation nor deposited the same before the Civil Court. That the scheme has not been substantially implemented as required under the law as such the same is required to be declared as having lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act and that since the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already quashed the aforesaid notifications declaring the acquisition in respect of the land in very same survey number having stood obliterated and lapsed by operation of law, similar order is required to be passed in respect of the subject land of the petitioners. 4. Objection statement had been filed by the respondent-BDA contending that: (a) The writ petition is not maintainable for inordinate delay of more than 22 years from the date of issuance of the final notification in approaching the Court. It is also alleged that the petition is liable to be dismissed for petitioner suppressing the filing of the original suit before the Civil Court and there being no cause of action for the present petition. It is also alleged that the petition is liable to be dismissed for petitioner suppressing the filing of the original suit before the Civil Court and there being no cause of action for the present petition. (b) The petitioners have also suppressed the fact of they having themselves alienated the subject land by forming residential sites to various persons much prior to and subsequent to the initiation of acquisition proceedings. (c) One Sri.Gullappa had purchased 2 acres 8 guntas of land in the year 1967. That the said Sri.Gullappa had three sons namely Muniyappa, Jayappa and Venkatesh. That the said persons had jointly executed various deeds of sale on 15.07.1994, 18.03.1994, 26.05.1994, 05.05.1994, 16.09.1994, in favour of persons namely Sri.Ganesh M. Sheit, Sri.Ganesh Heggade, Sri.Mahadeva Thimmanna Heggade, Sri.Radha Krishna B.M., Sri.ThippeSiddaiah, Sri.M.D.Naresh, Sri.Ganesh Diwakar Bhat, Sri.Rajesh Diwakar Bhat, Anitha M. Bhat, Bharathi S. Bhat, Sri.N.Narasimhamurthy. Some of the aforesaid purchasers had filed objections to the acquisition proceedings and had also requested for deletion of portion of the lands purchased by them from acquisition. Some of the purchasers had also filed claim petition under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act . (d) That on 15.02.1995 a mahazar was drawn wherein the malkies over the land in Sy.No.21/2 to an entire extent of 4 acres 24 guntas was shown in the mahazar. (e) That on 22.09.1995 Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in respect of the entire extent of land in the said survey number. In the said award the aforesaid sale transaction made by the petitioners had been taken note of. Accordingly, notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. (f) Possession of the land had been taken over by the Revenue inspector on 09.04.1996 and 09.08.1996 and was handed over to the respondent-BDA, with a specific mention with regard to some persons having unauthorisedly put up construction had made application for regularization. That the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act had been published in the official gazette. Thus in view the aforesaid events and documents the petitioners cannot contend that the possession has not been taken over by the respondent-BDA. (g) That the award amount has been sent to the City Civil Court. (h) That Sri.Gullappa and his sons had filed a suit in O.S.No.7881/1996 challenging the acquisition proceedings. Thus in view the aforesaid events and documents the petitioners cannot contend that the possession has not been taken over by the respondent-BDA. (g) That the award amount has been sent to the City Civil Court. (h) That Sri.Gullappa and his sons had filed a suit in O.S.No.7881/1996 challenging the acquisition proceedings. Notice in the said suit was received by respondent-BDA on 17.03.1997 which fact has not been disclosed in the present writ petition. (i) That the respondent-BDA regularized unauthorised construction carried out by some of the purchasers of sites from the petitioners and has issued separate orders in that regard. (j) That on 04.02.1998 a letter was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner-BDA to the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Urban Development Department informing about regularization of unauthorised construction of about 13 persons, the matter was even presented before the Legislative Assembly. That certain representations were received on 15.05.1999, 28.06.1999 from certain persons seeking deletion of land and re-allotment in their favour. (k) That in view of the regularisation of portion of land a revised award amount was determined as per the supplementary note dated 17.09.1999. The earlier cheque that was sent had not been encashed. The revised cheque has been sent to the Civil Court. (l) Certain purchasers of site from the petitioners had filed writ petition in W.P.No.4525-4535/2000 before this Court seeking stay of demolition of their properties in which interim orders had been granted. In the meanwhile the purchasers of sites from the petitioners made representation to the respondent-BDA seeking for allotment of alternate sites. Endorsements have been issued by the respondent-BDA on 17.04.2000 to the purchasers of the sites stating that since the acquisition proceedings are concluded the request cannot be considered by the respondent-BDA. (m) That one Gangappa claiming to be the owner of property in Sy.No.21/2 filed application on 13.06.2000 seeking disbursement of the award amount in his favour. Similarly one Smt.Govindamma filed application on 04.08.2000 seeking compensation. The said persons have admitted respondent-BDA having formed the road in the said land and the possession having been taken over by respondent-BDA. (n) Sri.Jayappa, son of Sri.Gullappa filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.10.2000 seeking reference to the Civil Court and had admitted the acquisition proceedings and passing of the award by the respondent-BDA, which application was rejected on 13.11.2000 for the reason of delay in filing the same. (n) Sri.Jayappa, son of Sri.Gullappa filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.10.2000 seeking reference to the Civil Court and had admitted the acquisition proceedings and passing of the award by the respondent-BDA, which application was rejected on 13.11.2000 for the reason of delay in filing the same. Aggrieved by the said order said Jayappa had filed reference in LAC No.462/2000 under section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act which was allowed by the Civil Court vide order dated 28.10.2002. Pursuant to the said order matter was referred to the Civil Court. (o) Several purchasers had addressed letters to the respondent-BDA alleging that the owners of the land in Sy.No.21/2 had cheated them by selling the sites and had even filed police complaint. They had requested for compensation and/or allotment of alternate sites. Endorsement dated 09.08.2004 was issued by the respondent-BDA stating that there was no provision for allotment of alternate sites to the revenue site holders. (p) Respondent-BDA had regularized unauthorized construction of 20% who had constructed houses in Sy.No.21/2. List prepared in this regard on 13.02.2009 is produced along with the statement of objections. (q) The order passed in W.P.No.13618-13620/2014 and 13621-13623/2014 was by invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. That in the said writ petition it was not brought to the notice of the Court regarding alienation made by forming sites. (r) Formation of road by respondent-BDA and regularization of unauthorised construction made by the purchasers of the sites was also not brought to the notice of the Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said writ petitions disbelieved the taking over of the possession of the property only on the ground that the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued belatedly in the year 2012. That though the said order has attained finality by confirmation of the same by the Apex Court, the documents now produced along with the statement of objections are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the possession had been taken over by the respondent -BDA as per the records and also as admitted by the persons who have purchased the property from petitioners. (s) The petitioners are not entitled for similar relief inasmuch as they have sold sites in favour of third parties. (s) The petitioners are not entitled for similar relief inasmuch as they have sold sites in favour of third parties. The said purchasers have admitted formation of road and utilization of property by the respondent-BDA. Almost 20 persons have got their unauthorized construction regularized. That CA site No.8 is located at Sy.No.21/2 and 20/5 which has been allotted to M/s.Jamya Masjid and Muslim Charitable Trust for the purpose of construction of an educational institution. That said Trust had taken plan sanction and has commenced construction work. (t) That respondent-BDA has formed layout consisting of several sites in Sy.No.21/2. Name of respondent-BDA had been entered into in the revenue records. As such, the allegation of petitioners being in possession of the land cannot be accepted. (u) That the respondent -BDA and the State Government faced several litigations in respect of J.P. Nagar 8 th Stage Scheme which caused impediments in implementation of the scheme. Under the circumstances petitioners are not entitled for the relief under Section 27 of the BDA Act.Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Rejoinder is filed by the petitioners to the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.2, contending that: (a) the averments made in the statement of objections and the documents furnished by the respondent-BDA do not pertain to the land of the petitioners. (b) The petitioners are the land owners in respect of property bearing survey No.21/ 2, measuring 2 acres 8 out of total extent of land measured 4 acre 24 guntas including 8 guntas of kharab. It is further contended that remaining extent of 2 acres 8 guntas belong to one Sri.Gangappa. That the said Sri.Gangappa had already filed writ petitions which were allowed quashing the very same acquisition pertaining to very same land which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Apex Court. (c) That the Respondent No.2-BDA has produced more than 50 documents consisting of deeds of sale, representations by the site owners to demonstrate that the petitioners have already sold the entire extent of their land by forming sites to third persons, which is incorrect and misleading. It is further contended documents at Annexures Ex.R-26, R-32, R-33, R-34, R-35, R-36, R-39, R-40, R-41, R-42, R-46 and R-47 do not pertain to the land belonging to the petitioners. It is further contended documents at Annexures Ex.R-26, R-32, R-33, R-34, R-35, R-36, R-39, R-40, R-41, R-42, R-46 and R-47 do not pertain to the land belonging to the petitioners. On the other hand, the said documents pertain to the adjacent land belonging to Sri.Gangappa and not Sri.Gullappa. (d) That the respondent-BDA has passed the award to an extent of entire 4 acres 24 guntas in Gullappa's name whereas an extent of 2 acres 8 guntas of land belonged to Sri.Gangappa, acquisition of which is already quashed as such they could not have passed award in respect of said land. (e) Referring to Annexure R28, a supplementary note dated 17.09.1999, it is contended only an extent of 39 guntas of land out of 4 acre 24 guntas in Sy.No.21/2 has been regularized and that there has been no bifurcation of land between Sri.Gangappa and Sri.Gullappa and no proper inquiry has been conducted by respondent-BDA as to whom does the said extent of 39 guntas of land belong. It is also contended there has been no spot inspection report or joint survey by the respondent-BDA in respect to the lands belonging to Sri.Gangappa and Sri.Gullappa. It is not clear as to in respect of whose land the respondent- BDA has sent the cheque towards compensation. As such, no compensation has been paid to the petitioners. (f) That the respondent-BDA has failed to produce proper documents with regard to the extent of land belonging to Sri.Gullappa after regularizing his sites in favor of the purchasers. It is also not clear as to how many sites have been formed in the land belonging to Sri.Gullappa. In the absence of these details, respondent-BDA cannot contend that the land belonging to the petitioners has been sold and has been regularized in favor of the purchasers of the sites. (g) It is also contended that subsequent to issuance of Preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988, respondent- BDA had issued Final notification seeking to acquire 958 acres of land. The State Government had not approved the scheme under Section 15 of the BDA Act. Said illegalities were pointed out by the land owners in writ petition No.33777 of 1994 before this Court. This Court by order dated 26.09.1996 quashed the final notification. The State Government had not approved the scheme under Section 15 of the BDA Act. Said illegalities were pointed out by the land owners in writ petition No.33777 of 1994 before this Court. This Court by order dated 26.09.1996 quashed the final notification. As such, all the actions initiated by the respondent-BDA pursuant to the final declaration dated 19.10.1994 were of no consequences and are nullity in the eye of law. (h) That subsequent to the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.33777 of 1994, respondent-BDA had issued fresh declaration on 17.09.1997 after obtaining administrative accord and approval of sanctions from the respondent -State. That as there was no scheme at all in respect of any land subject matter of final notification, and the scheme was sanctioned only in year 1997, in respect of 327 acres 12 hectares of land, the notification in question cannot be sustained. (i) It is also contended that the subject matter of the present petition is covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of R. Adikeshavalu Naidu and others vs. State of Karnataka and others , wherein the acquisition has been quashed, which is confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 15015 of 2021. 6. Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioners reiterating the contents of the documents and the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition submitted: (a) That though the petitioners have sought relief in respect of 2 acres 8 guntas of land, since the petitioners have sold an extent of 17631 square feet of land in the form of sites in favor of prospective purchasers, the petitioners would restrict this writ petition only to the remaining extent of vacant land, which is about 78,168 square feet. (b) Referring to the order dated 31.03.2016 passed in writ petition Nos.13618-13620 and 13621-623 of 2014 which was allowed by quashing the notification in respect of the said extent of land, confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, and the Apex Court, she submitted that since the acquisition of portion of land forming part of said Sy.No.21/2 belonging to the very family members of the petitioners having been quashed, on the principle of parity, the benefit of quashing of the very same acquisition should be extended to the petitioners as well. (c) As regards the contention of the respondent-BDA of purchasers approaching for regularization and the entire land belonging to the petitioners having been regularized in favor of the such purchasers, she submitted that there is no acceptable material evidence brought on record by the respondent-BDA in justification of the said contention. She submitted that the sale deeds produced by the respondent-BDA would only cover an extent of 17,631 square feet of land belonging to the petitioners. However, the respondent-BDA has apparently appropriated the land belonging to the petitioners to regularize the sale deeds in respect of persons to whom the petitioners have no connection at all. (d) She refers to a memo dated 20.02.2025 produced along with the encumbrance certificate to contend that only eleven sale deeds were executed in favor of the prospective purchasers. Save and except the same, the remaining extent of land is still in possession of the petitioners. Acquisition in respect to the said extent of land is required to be quashed. Hence sought for allowing of the petition. 7. Sri Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA on the other hand taking this Court through the statement of objections and the records submitted that: (a) The petitioners cannot claim benefit of the order passed in W.P.No.13618/13620 and 13621-13623/2014 on principles of parity as the facts are different and distinguishable. That though Sri.Gangappa had earlier successfully challenged the acquisition, subsequently he had approached the respondent-BDA seeking for compensation on the premise that the respondent-BDA had utilized his land for formation of a road, which only indicates that the respondent-BDA had indeed utilized the land. (b) Referring to the deeds of sale, produced along with the statement of objections he vehemently submitted that the said transactions would indicate that the petitioners themselves have alienated a substantial portion of the land being claimed by them and that the purchasers under such alienation had approached respondent-BDA seeking regularization of the sites purchased by them. (c) He refers to Annexure R4, which is produced along with the statement of objections, providing the details of the regularization so made. Hence seeks for dismissal of petition. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. (c) He refers to Annexure R4, which is produced along with the statement of objections, providing the details of the regularization so made. Hence seeks for dismissal of petition. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated31.03.2016 passed in writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13618-13620 and 13621-13623/2014, accepting the contentions of the petitioners therein held that though an extent of 1009 acres 14 guntas of land was sought to be acquired under preliminary notification, in the final notification, it was restricted only to an extent of 945 acres. It has also taken note of the fact that subsequently respondent-BDA had taken physical possession of only an extent of 396 acres, 12 guntas of land and formed sites in respect of 220 acres and 14 guntas of land. Referring to Mahazar at Annexures R3 and R5 produced therein it is held that the said documents were standard formats with blanks conveniently filled up and the same could not be relied upon to hold that the respondent-BDA had indeed taken possession of the land belonging to the petitioners therein by means of such documents. It was also noted that the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued only in the year 2012. As such, it was not established to the satisfaction of the Court that the physical possession of land had indeed been taken. It further held that the lands of the petitioners therein, having remained untouched, physical possession of the lands not having been taken, the scheme had not been substantially implemented within five years. Thus, consequently petitions were allowed by holding that not only the scheme but also the acquisition had lapsed. Since the aforesaid order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.No.3353/2016 and W.A.Nos.5170-5174/2016 and the special leave petition filed by the respondent-BDA in Special Leave Petition No.28329/2018 was dismissed by the Apex Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the principles of parity, petitioners are entitled for the similar relief. 10. 10. Before adverting to the merits of the aforesaid submissions, necessary at this juncture to note that it is settled position of law that for the purpose of applying the principles of parity, the situation of the parties, factual aspect of the matter and the provisions of law sought to be applied shall be similar, equal and identical. Should there be any differences in these aspects of the matter, there cannot be application of principles of parity in the matter. 11. Further it is equally settled that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act it has to be specifically pleaded that there has been deliberate failure and dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-BDA in substantially implementing the Scheme. 12. As noted above, the only contention that had been urged in the aforesaid petitions in W.P.No.13618-13620 and 13621-13623/2014, was that the petitioners therein had remained in possession of land and the mahazar that was purportedly drawn by the respondent-BDA was not reliable, as such the scheme had lapsed. 13. In the instant case, though originally the petitioners had sought for quashing of notifications in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, later by way of an amendment the said reliefs were deleted and quashing was sought on the basis of provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act 1976. 14. It is only when the respondent-BDA filed the statement of objections on 24.11.2022, the factum of the petitioners having sold a portion of the subject land by forming sites thereon was brought on record by way of deeds of sale produced at Annexures R-1 to R12. It is only thereafter petitioners by way of rejoinder filed on 16.08.2023 admitted they having sold the portion of the subject land. 15. Taking note of this aspect of the matter this Court by order dated 03.09.2024 had directed the petitioners to file an affidavit stating the extent of land alienated by them along with a sketch of survey number showing their extent of 2 acres and 8 guntas. Similarly the respondent-BDA was directed to file affidavit along with a sketch showing where the road has been formed and also the details of alienation of the land by the petitioners, if the respondent-BDA had the information about the same. Similarly the respondent-BDA was directed to file affidavit along with a sketch showing where the road has been formed and also the details of alienation of the land by the petitioners, if the respondent-BDA had the information about the same. 16. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit dated 25.10.2024 of one Smt Lakshmi @ Neela- the petitioner No.4 has been filed admitting alienation of an extent of 17,631 square feet of land to third parties as per the deeds of sale produced by the respondent-BDA vide Annexures R-1 to R12. However it is further contended that remaining extent of 78201 square feet(1 acre 31 guntas) of land has been still in possession of the petitioners. Though survey sketch and akarband providing details of measurements are enclosed to the said affidavit it is not made clear either in the affidavit or in the documents so enclosed as to which portion out of 2 acres and08 guntas is sold by forming sites thereon. No layout plan is forthcoming in this regard either. 17. Respondent-BDA filed affidavit dated 09.01.2025 along with Survey Sketch, Google Map and Total Station Layout Plan showing the formation of Road in the land in Sy.No.21/2.There is no denial of the same by the petitioners. 18. Thus, as seen, the present writ petition though originally filed in year 2016 till the year 2023 -2024 petitioners have not brought on record either about the factum of they having sold the portion of land or the respondent-BDA forming the road on the subject land. However at the time of arguments, learned Senior counsel on instructions submitted that the petitioners would restrict their claim in this writ petition in respect of the area remaining after excluding 17631 square feet of land that has been sold by them as well as the portion utilised for formation of road by the respondent-BDA. 19. Clearly in view of this admitted position petitioners can neither claim to be the owners nor in possession of the entire extent of land subject matter of the present writ petition. 20. 19. Clearly in view of this admitted position petitioners can neither claim to be the owners nor in possession of the entire extent of land subject matter of the present writ petition. 20. Apart from the above, there are certain pertinent facts and events that have been brought on record by the respondent-BDA which have not been denied by the petitioners even in the rejoinder filed by them, which are as follows: a) Purchasers of the sites from Sri.Gullappa and his sons namely Muniyappa, Jayappa and Venkatesh, making separate representations as per Annexures R-1(a) to R-12(a) seeking deletion of their lands from acquisition; b) One Jayanna son of Hanumathappa filing a claim petition on 21.11.1994 claiming right over the entire extent of land as per Annexure R13; c) One Narasimhamurthy seeking regularisation of his property as per Annexure R14; d) Mahazar being drawn on 15.02.1995 with reference to status of land and malkies existing thereon as per Annexure R16; e) Award dated 22.09.1995 having been passed by the SLAO fixing compensation of Rs.10,76,398/- for 4 acres 24 guntas of land in Sy.No.21/2, with specific reference to the claim petition received from persons claiming to have purchased the portions of land as per Annexure R17; f) Mahazar and the detailed report of taking possession of land with reference to existence of unauthorised constructions as per Annexures R-18 and R-19; g) Sending of award amount by way of cheque to the City Civil Court as per Annexure R-20; h) Communication dated 04.02.1998 by the Deputy Commissioner- BDA to the Prl. Secretary, Government of Karnataka regarding regularisation of 13 unauthorised constructions as per Annexure-R-22. Secretary, Government of Karnataka regarding regularisation of 13 unauthorised constructions as per Annexure-R-22. Reply Note of the Commissioner placed before the legislative assembly as per Annexure R-23; i) Supplementary note dated 17.09.1999 regarding determination of Revised award and forwarding of the revised cheque to the city Civil Court as per Annexures R-27 to R-29; j) One Gangappa claiming to be owner of the other portion land filing claim petition and representation for compensation as per Annexures R-34 and R-35; k) One Govindamma seeking compensation from respondent-BDA for utilising her land for formation of Road in Sy.No.21/2 as per Annexure R-36; l) Jayappa, son of Gullappa filing application dated11.10.2000 under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act seeking reference of the matter to City Civil Court as per Annexure R-37, which was rejected on 13.11.2000 on the ground of delay as per Annexure R-38; m) Said Jayappa thereafter preferring an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the LA Act in LAC No.462/200 before the City Civil Court, which after recording evidence was allowed vide a detailed order dated 28.10.2002 directing to forward the application earlier filed by the said Jayappa under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequent compliance of the said order by the SLAO vide communications dated 26.02.2003 and 28.02.2004 as per Annexure R-43 to R-45. 21. The aforesaid undisputed events lead to irresistible conclusion that land being claimed by the petitioners has indeed been acquired, award has been passed and possession has been taken in compliance with the requirement of law and the same is to the very knowledge of the petitioners. 22. Jayappa who filed application initially under Section18 and thereafter under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act as noted above is none other than the son of Gullappa, the notified khathedar. Petitioners No.5 and 6 in the present Writ Petition are the wife and daughter of said Jayappa. Other Petitioners are the wives and children respectively of Muniyappa and Venkatesh the other two brothers of the said Jayappa (sons of Gullappa). Petitioners No.5 and 6 in the present Writ Petition are the wife and daughter of said Jayappa. Other Petitioners are the wives and children respectively of Muniyappa and Venkatesh the other two brothers of the said Jayappa (sons of Gullappa). Contents of the Application filed by the said Jayappa under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act in LAC No.462/2000 before the City Civil Court, and the detailed order dated 28.10.2002 passed therein after recording the evidence leaves no doubt that the petitioners more particularly said Jayappa were in complete knowledge of the acquisition, passing of the award and taking of possession of the subject land by the respondent-BDA after drawing of mahazar. 23. It is settled law that once a claim petition is filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenge to the acquisition is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 482. 24. Records would indicate that respondent-BDA has indeed regularised the occupation of the sites by the purchasers, particulars of which are furnished in Annexure-R48 which are as under: 25. Though the petitioners claim that respondent-BDA is utilising the land of the petitioners to regularise the sale made by Gangappa as well, the fact remains that admittedly the petitioners themselves have sold several sites to the purchasers which have been regularised by the respondent -BDA. If the petitioners contend that they have sold only an extent of 17,861 square feet out of subject land it is for the petitioners to have brought on record the particulars of sale so made, including the details of approved layout plan if any. As noted already even in the affidavit dated 25.10.2024 of Smt Lakhmi @ Neela the Petitioner No.4, that was filed pursuant to the direction of this Court, except stating that 17,861 square feet of land has been sold to various purchasers, no further details are furnished. 26. Further, again by order dated 16.01.2025 this Court had directed the petitioners to obtain and furnish the encumbrance certificates, with both survey numbers as well as revenue site number if any. 26. Further, again by order dated 16.01.2025 this Court had directed the petitioners to obtain and furnish the encumbrance certificates, with both survey numbers as well as revenue site number if any. Respondent-BDA was also directed to obtain instruction as to the extent of land claimed by the petitioners that has been developed and also to clarify whether deeds of sale produced by it along with statement of objections pertain to the land being claimed by the petitioners alone or not. 27. In response the petitioners produced encumbrance certificates along with a memo dated 20.2.2025 showing the that they have sold portion of subject land by forming a layout consisting sites bearing Nos. 1, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49 of different dimensions with separate Khatha Numbers. It is not clear as to how, when and who has assigned these site numbers and the khatha numbers. No details in this regard are furnished either. The encumbrance certificate with reference to the Survey No.21/2 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas as per document No.12 to the said memo still showing Nil Transaction. 28. Petitioners invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court are expected to have approached this Court with clean hands placing on record the true and correct facts of the matter. That not having been done petitioners cannot be heard to say that respondent-BDA is required to prove the details of sites which have been sold by the petitioners and which have been regularised by utilising the subject land. Even if the contention of the petitioners that the respondent-BDA has utilised the subject land for regularising the sale of sites made by some other land owners is to be considered, no error or irregularity in that can be found inasmuch as admittedly the respondent-BDA has acquired the land which has its dominion over the same with absolute authority to utilize the land as it deemed fit. 29. These aspects, were not subject matter of consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition in W.P.No.13618-13620 and 13621-13623/2014. Thus there being complete disparity in the factual aspects of the matters question of granting similar relief by application of principles of parity to the instant case would not arise. 30. 29. These aspects, were not subject matter of consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition in W.P.No.13618-13620 and 13621-13623/2014. Thus there being complete disparity in the factual aspects of the matters question of granting similar relief by application of principles of parity to the instant case would not arise. 30. Since the petitioners are seeking quashing of the notifications on the premise of scheme having been lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, appropriate at this juncture to refer to the said provision which is as under; " 27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years - Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative." 31. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanthamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, ILR 1984 KAR. 1494 dealing with Section 27 of the BDA Act at paragraphs 6 and 7 has held as under; "6. For the scheme to lapse there must be proof regarding the failure on the part of the authority to execute the scheme substantially within five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. It seems to us that in the first place the "failure to execute the scheme" envisaged under Section 27 means that there must be dereliction of statutory duties without justification and not a mere delay in the execution of the scheme. Secondly, the "substantial execution" in the context depends upon the magnitude of the scheme and the nature of the work executed and remains to be executed. 7. In the very nature of the project in question, it is almost impossible for this Court to embark upon an enquiry on the contention raised by the Learned Counsel. The Court as observed by the learned Single Judge would be slow to interfere with the public projects, massive or minor, unless there is compelling reason. We do not find any such compelling reason in this Court." 32. The Court as observed by the learned Single Judge would be slow to interfere with the public projects, massive or minor, unless there is compelling reason. We do not find any such compelling reason in this Court." 32. The Apex Court in the case of Offshore Holding Private Limited vs. Bengaluru Development Authority, (2011) 3 SCC 139 has held that even if for any reason the scheme lapses, the acquisition would not. 33. Thus, in view of the aforesaid undisputed factual aspect of the matter of respondent-BDA taking possession of subject land, award having been passed, layout and road having been formed, unauthorised occupation of sites sold by the petitioners having been regularized, and in the light of settled position of law referred to above, petitioners cannot be heard to say that the acquisition has lapsed and the same has been abandoned. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis petition lacks merit and stands dismissed.