JUDGMENT : D.K. SINGH, J. 1. These two writ appeals have been filed impugning two judgments passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2664 of 2008 and Writ Petition Nos.52635-52638 of 2014, respectively. 2. Writ Petition No.2664/2008 was filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.30, measuring 02 acres 14 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.34/1 measuring 02 acres 07 guntas situated at Shivanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. A notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “LA Act of 1894”) on 30.03.1990, proposing to acquire a total extent of 24 acres and 05 guntas of land in Jakkur and Shivanahalli Villages. The land bearing Survey No.31 (1 acre and 14 guntas) and Survey No.34/1-2 (2 acres) were notified along with 18 other items of land. 3. A declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act of 1894, dated 09.03.1991 was published in the official Gazette on 23.05.1991 in respect of the same items of land. The said land was required for the benefit of the University of Agricultural Sciences Employees House Building Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agricultural Society’). It was also said that an award came to be passed in respect of the land acquired. But, the award was passed in respect of the land bearing Survey No.30 instead of Survey No.31. Despite the award and notice of the award, the petitioners did not choose to receive the award amount and the petitioners said that they remained in possession of the land in Survey No.30 inasmuch as according to them, it was never the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings initiated, by issuing preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act on 30.03.1990. Thereafter, the State had issued a notification under Section 16 of the LA Act of 1894 dated 11.09.1996, in respect of the land in Survey No.30. 4. The said notification issued under Section 16 of the LA Act of 1894, came to be challenged by the mother of the petitioners before this Court by filing WP.No.28409 and 28410 of 1991. These writ petitions came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, in appeals, also upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. The said notification issued under Section 16 of the LA Act of 1894, came to be challenged by the mother of the petitioners before this Court by filing WP.No.28409 and 28410 of 1991. These writ petitions came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, in appeals, also upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. A review petition was filed by the respondent – Agricultural Society, before the Division Bench. The Society had challenged the decision of the Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No. 5095/1995. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 04.10.2001, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent – Agricultural Society and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Division Bench and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. 5. Learned Division Bench, on remand, upheld the land acquisition proceedings and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, review petition as well as writ appeal came to be allowed. Against the said judgment passed by the learned Division Bench on 28.01.2005 in Review Petition No.494/2000 in Writ Appeal No.2421/1997, the petitioners went to the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.18153/2005. The said SLP, however, came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2005. 6. The petitioners have also filed Original Suit No.16943/2006 against the Respondents - Agricultural Society and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, for permanent injunction. They had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction. The said temporary injunction application filed in Original Suit No.16943/2006 came to be rejected vide order dated 29.09.2007. The appeal filed against the rejection of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 in Original Suit No.16943/2006 also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 12.11.2007. 7. The petitioners, thereafter, filed fresh Writ Petition No.2664/2008 challenging the preliminary and final notification as well as corrigendum dated 22.04.1994 issued by the State Government, correcting the Survey No.31 as 30, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas and Survey No.34/1-2 as Sy.No.34/1 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas of Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said writ petition came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.01.2014. 8. The said writ petition came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.01.2014. 8. The learned Single Judge had taken note of the earlier round of proceedings and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and dismissal of the SLP. 9. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the corrigendum was issued only to rectify the typographical error in survey number and in place of Survey No.31, Survey No.30 was corrected. It may also be taken note of the fact that the petitioners were well aware of the land acquisition proceedings. The extent of the land mentioned in Survey No.31, as issued in the preliminary and final notification, was 1 acre and 14 guntas, which is the extent of land in Survey No.30 and therefore, the State Government issued notification under Section 16(2) whereby the typographical error in survey numbers got corrected. Learned Single Judge, therefore, observed as under:- “It may be said that the respondents have sought to rectify a typographical error only and have not in effect sought to modify the notification itself. This also is not the understanding of the petitioners, going by the reference to the particular land all along during the proceedings, even before a Corrigendum was introduced by the State. The petitioners had filed their objections to the preliminary notification as well as the award proceedings with regard to the land bearing the corrected survey number. Therefore, the prejudice which would apparently befall a land holder, in his land being inaccurately described in the preliminary notification and further proceedings being taken without recourse to a corrected preliminary notification, and possession being sought to be wrested from him by surprise – is not evident from the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. Hence, for the above reasons, there is no merit to be found in the petition and the same is dismissed.” 10. Hence, for the above reasons, there is no merit to be found in the petition and the same is dismissed.” 10. When the Writ Petition No.2664/2008 was pending, the petitioners again filed two writ petitions i.e., Writ petition Nos.52635-52638 of 2014 for following prayers:- “a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 30.03.1990 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under the original of Annexure A. b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 09.05.1991 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under the original of Annexure B. c. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 11.09.1996 (wrongly dated as 11.09.1966) under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with respect to 1 Acre 14 guntas Survey No.30, Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under the original of Annexure D. d. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Award passed by the 2nd respondent in No.LAC.15/91-92 dated 08.09.1995 with respect to 1 Acre 14 Guntas Survey No.30, Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under the original of Annexure C. e. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Corrigendum Amended Notification dated 18.04.1994 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to 1 Acre 14 guntas Survey No.30, Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under the original of Annexure L. f. Declare that the possession of the schedule lands are with the petitioners and restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the schedule lands. g. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the above case.” 11. In the aforesaid writ petitions, again the petitioners challenged the preliminary notification dated 30.03.1990 issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act of 1894 and the final notification dated 09.05.1991 issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act of 1894. The petitioners again challenged the corrigendum dated 11.09.1996 issued by the State Government under Section 16(2) of the Act of 1894 correcting the typographical mistake in Survey No.31. 12. Learned Single Judge also considered the ground that no compensation was deposited in respect of the land acquired in respect of the Sy.No.30. The petitioners again challenged the corrigendum dated 11.09.1996 issued by the State Government under Section 16(2) of the Act of 1894 correcting the typographical mistake in Survey No.31. 12. Learned Single Judge also considered the ground that no compensation was deposited in respect of the land acquired in respect of the Sy.No.30. Learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the challenge made to the acquisition proceedings had been turned down by the learned Division Bench, against which, the SLP came to be dismissed and therefore, the question so far as the issue regarding the land acquisition proceedings was concerned, the same had attained finality and the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings would be hit by the principle of res judicata and as the writ petition was dismissed in the second round of litigation, the very same issue could not have been considered and gone into. 13. The second ground urged by the petitioners that no compensation was assessed and deposited was also repelled by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the land was acquired way back in 1995 when the petitioners had filed the writ petitions in the year 2014, after more than two decades and the writ petitions were hit by gross delay and latches. Thus, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners also came to be rejected. 14. But despite dismissal of the writ petitions, we independently enquired about the factum of assertion made by the petitioners that no award was passed in respect of their land in Survey No.30, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas. The said contention is also falsified from the record produced by the State indicating that not only award was passed, but award notice was also issued on 12.01.1996 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, to the mother of the petitioners asking her to take the compensation, by presenting herself in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, on 15.02.1996 at 11.00 a.m. 15. The details of compensation assessed in respect of the petitioners’ land in Survey No.30 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, was given in the award notice as under: 16. The notice was issued for Rs.4,79,142.60 to the mother of the petitioners. However, the petitioners themselves have said that they did not choose to receive the compensation and remained in possession. The details of compensation assessed in respect of the petitioners’ land in Survey No.30 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, was given in the award notice as under: 16. The notice was issued for Rs.4,79,142.60 to the mother of the petitioners. However, the petitioners themselves have said that they did not choose to receive the compensation and remained in possession. The said amount of compensation also got deposited in the Treasury by the challan dated 05.05.1995 and the total amount deposited in respect of the land acquired in survey numbers 4/3, 34/1 and 2, 30 was Rs.8,33,838/-. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that no amount of compensation was assessed and no compensation was deposited is also wholly false and incorrect in view of the documents submitted by the State. 17. We, therefore, dismiss both these appeals on the ground of principle of res judicata as well as on the fact that the petitioners themselves were aware of the amount having been deposited, as they have stated in their pleadings that they had not taken the compensation and they had remained in possession of the land. Even otherwise, there is no claim of the petitioners that they could not receive the compensation, as it was not assessed and deposited. The assertion of the petitioners gets falsified from the record of the State. We, therefore, dismiss both the appeals, however, without cost. The petitioners may, if they so choose, receive the compensation as assessed and deposited by the State in respect of their lands by moving an appropriate application. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.