ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the final notification dated 08.05.2003 issued under Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short), subsequent transfer of the land made in favour of respondent No.2-the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and transferred to respondent No.4-Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board (BWSSB) in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.132 and 133 of Kodigehalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the ‘schedule property’ for short) and further seeking a direction to the BDA to allot alternate sites or pay compensation in due thereof. Brief facts: 2. The lands in question originally belonged to one T.L. Prema Kumar, who formed a revenue layout in 1994 after obtaining approval from Kodigehalli Grama Panchayat and subsequently sold several sites to the petitioners through registered sale deeds. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the respective sites, holding khatas, building permissions, and regularly paying taxes. In 2004, when respondent No.6 tried to fence the area, the petitioners lodged objections before the BDA, which later issued an endorsement dated 26.07.2004, stating that the land had not been acquired by the BDA. Petitioners continued to remain in possession, paying taxes and holding building plans. 3. In December 2021, the BWSSB began digging works for a water storage project, claiming that the BDA had allotted the land to it. The petitioners protested and sought allotment of alternate sites. Earlier, W.P. Nos.7272/2022 and 26184/2023 were disposed of with a direction to BDA to consider the petitioners’ representation for allotment of the alternate sites or compensation, and interim protection was granted against dispossession. Despite this, the BWSSB has entered the property in 2020 and 2023, demolished the compound wall and took possession without notice. 4. The case of the petitioners is that, the KIADB has issued an endorsement dated 08.07.2024, stating that the compensation was deposited in LAC No.85/2006 pursuant to an award dated 05.08.2004, even though the acquired land was subsequently handed over to the BDA and then to BWSSB without any fresh notification or process. The petitioners contend that, the land was acquired for the industrial corridor project was never utilized for the intended purpose, consequently, the acquisition has lapsed de-facto. They state that subsequent transfers to the BDA and BWSSB are illegal. The petitioners contend that, the land was acquired for the industrial corridor project was never utilized for the intended purpose, consequently, the acquisition has lapsed de-facto. They state that subsequent transfers to the BDA and BWSSB are illegal. Hence, seek to quash the final notification dated 08.05.2003 and all consequential transfers, and in the alternative, to direct the BDA to allot alternate sites and to pay `60,00,000/- per site as compensation, asserting that they were the lawful owners, had remained in possession for decades and were deprived of property without due process of law. 5. Respondent No.3-KIADB has filed objections, contending that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The lands in Survey Nos.132 and 133 of Kodigehalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk were acquired under the provisions of the KIAD Act for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (B.M.I.C.P.) promoted by respondent No.6-NICE. The preliminary notifications were issued on 19.12.1988 and 03.06.1999, and a final notification was issued on 08.05.2003. The notified khatedars were T.L. Premkumar and T.L. Nagaraju, through whom the petitioners claim rights through revenue site - sale deeds executed in 1994, which do not refer to the aforementioned survey numbers, and therefore, they have no title or locus to question the acquisition. The awards were passed on 05.08.2004, and compensation of `11,43,551/- each was deposited before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural in LAC No.85/2006, and the possession of Sy. Nos.132 and 133 were taken on 25.02.2004 and 19.02.2004 respectively. Having claimed compensation, the petitioners are barred from challenging the acquisition. The Department of Commerce and Industries, which issued the notification has not been impleaded, rendering the petition defective for non-joinder of a necessary party. It is further urged that earlier petitions in W.P. Nos.7272/2022 and 26184/2023 involving the same acquisition have already been disposed of, attaining finality, and hence, the present writ petition is hit by res judicata. 6. The lands have been lawfully handed over by NICE to the BDA and thereafter to BWSSB for construction of a ground level water reservoir, sewage treatment plant and borewell for Sri M. Vishweswaraiah layout, on being works of public purpose. The allegation that the possession was not taken or that acquisition was dropped is false and unsupported by material. 6. The lands have been lawfully handed over by NICE to the BDA and thereafter to BWSSB for construction of a ground level water reservoir, sewage treatment plant and borewell for Sri M. Vishweswaraiah layout, on being works of public purpose. The allegation that the possession was not taken or that acquisition was dropped is false and unsupported by material. The acquisition was completed in accordance with the KIAD Act, and any dispute as to the entitlement lies before the reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short). 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the acquisition under the KIAD Act has lapsed, since the land was never utilized for the industrial purpose for which it was notified. The possession was not taken as per the law and the transfer of the unutilized land to the BDA and then to the BWSSB is void ab initio. The KIADB's endorsement dated 08.07.2024, referring to deposit of compensation in LAC No.85/2006, cannot extinguish their ownership, as they were never notified or compensated. It is further contended that the petitioners continue to be in possession, and that the BWSSB forcibly entered into the land during COVID-19 period in 2020. That the respondent's action amounts to deprivation of the property without authority of law, violating Article 300A of the Constitution. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contends that the writ petition is not maintainable and is hit by the principles of res judicata, as earlier writ petitions on the same subject had been disposed of. The notified Khatedars, T.L. Premkumar and T.L. Nagaraju, along with the petitioners, who purchased the revenue site without reference to the survey numbers, have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition. Possession of Survey No.132 was taken on 25.02.2004 and Survey No.133 on 19.02.2004, the compensation of `11,43,551/- for each survey number was deposited before the Civil Court in LAC No.85/2006 pursuant to the award dated 05.08.2004. Once the compensation has been claimed, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the acquisition, and the principle of approbate and reprobate applies. The lands has been lawfully handed over for public purposes, i.e., construction of ground level water storage, reservoir for supply to Sri M. Vishweswaraiah layout. 10. Once the compensation has been claimed, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the acquisition, and the principle of approbate and reprobate applies. The lands has been lawfully handed over for public purposes, i.e., construction of ground level water storage, reservoir for supply to Sri M. Vishweswaraiah layout. 10. Having considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration are: “i. Whether the petitioners have established that the acquisition under the KIAD Act has lapsed or that possession was not taken in accordance with law? ii. Whether the subsequent transfer of land to BDA and BWSSB is vitiated by illegality?” 11. Upon perusal of the records and rival contentions, this Court finds that the final notification under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act was issued on 08.05.2003, the award was passed on 05.08.2004, and the possession was duly delivered in 2004. The compensation amount was deposited before the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act, treating it as a disputed case. Once possession was taken and award was passed, the acquisition proceedings attained finality. 12. The scope and interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘2013 Act’ for short), have been conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others , (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Indore Development Authority). The Apex Court held that the expression, ‘where compensation has not been paid or possession has not been taken’ must be read conjunctively, meaning that both conditions must be satisfied to claim a lapse of acquisition. It further clarified that once the possession has been taken or compensation paid, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse merely by efflux of time. 13. The subsequent utilization of the land for public utility project such as water reservoir cannot be construed as resulting in the lapsing of acquisition. The petitioners, who are purchasers of sites subsequent to the preliminary notification, cannot claim over the rights of the notified kathedars. Consequently, they cannot challenge the acquisition when their vendors themselves stood divested of ownership by operation of law. The contention of non- utilization is misconceived, as the lands has been utilized for public infrastructure. The petitioners, who are purchasers of sites subsequent to the preliminary notification, cannot claim over the rights of the notified kathedars. Consequently, they cannot challenge the acquisition when their vendors themselves stood divested of ownership by operation of law. The contention of non- utilization is misconceived, as the lands has been utilized for public infrastructure. Further, this Court in W.P. Nos.7272/2022 and 26184/2023 had already directed the BDA to consider the representation for allotment of alternate sites or payment of compensation. That direction having attained finality, the proper course for the petitioners was to pursue the matter before the concerned authority in terms of those orders and the reference proceedings in LAC No.85/2006. The re-agitation of the same cause is impermissible. 14. For the foregoing reason, this Court holds that the petitioners have made out no grounds to quash the final notification dated 08.05.2003 or the subsequent transfer of land. However, in the interest of equity, the BDA and the KIADB shall consider the petitioners’ representation for allotment of alternate sites or compensation, if not already done in accordance with law, within a reasonable time period, taking note of the directions issued in the earlier writ petitions. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition stands disposed of, holding that the acquisition of the land in Survey Nos.132 and 133 of Kodigehalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk under KIAD Act is valid and subsisting. ii. The petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies before the Reference Court in LAC No.85/2006 or pursue the consideration of their representation by the BDA and KIADB for allotment of alternate sites or compensation as already directed in W.P. Nos.7272/2022 and 26184/2023. iii. The BDA and the KIADB shall consider the representation for allotment of alternate sites or compensation, if not already done in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, taking note of the direction issued in the earlier writ petitions.