1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.40515 OF 2011(LA - BDA) BETWEEN: MRS.SHOBHA W/O LATE D.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1240, 32ND ‘G’ CROSS, IV ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 041. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI C.M.NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU – 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LA) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2 BENGALURU – 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.HUD 444 MNX 86 DATED 28.11.1986 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 25.12.1986 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY THE R1, IS INCAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HOSUR ROAD SARJAPUR ROAD SCHEME HAS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED & CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE AWARD BEARING NO.BDA/DC(LA)/AWARD/G1/3917/2005-06 DATED 6.12.2005 APPROVED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question Final Notification dated 28-11-1986 notified for acquisition of lands for formation of ‘Hosur Road and Sarjapura Road Layout’ (‘HSR’ layout for short) on the score that the scheme has lapsed. 3 2. Heard Sri C.M. Nagabushana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: - 3.1. On 08-06-1974 through two registered sale deeds, the petitioner purchases schedule lands. Pursuant to the said purchase, the revenue records, mutation entries and all other statutory entries showed the name of the petitioner. During subsistence of ownership of the petitioner, the respondent/Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) issues preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short) for formation of HSR Layout on 15-12-1984. Pursuant to the preliminary notification, the petitioner is said to have filed her objections thereto on 25-03-1985. On 13-11-1986 the Scheme under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act is approved by the Government for formation of entire stretch along with Hosur National Highway. After approval of the Scheme, a final notification 4 comes to be issued under Section 19 of the Act, on 28-11-1986. The averment in the petition is that the name of the petitioner is not shown in the preliminary notification and the final notification. Notice is issued to the petitioner under Sections 11 and 14 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’ for short) despite her name not being included in the final notification. The petitioner was directed to appear in person with reference to her claim. 3.2. The petitioner then files her objections to the said public notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act, requesting to drop her land from acquisition proceedings, since her land was fully developed. The BDA does not heed to the said objections, but goes on to proceed further with the acquisition. The petitioner then files another objection contending that she has already constructed a Kalyana Mantapa in her land and, therefore, the land should be dropped from acquisition. The petitioner also submits another representation on 15-06-1988, pursuant to which, a joint inspection is conducted on the land of the petitioner, wherein it is found that various structures have come up including Kalyana Mantapa and 5 opinion of the joint inspection was that it was difficult to bifurcate vacant land and built-up area. Therefore, the petitioner’s land should be dropped from acquisition. 3.3. In the interregnum, another notification comes to be issued seeking to acquire 4 guntas of land of the petitioner for the purpose of formation of National Highway. The said acquisition also gets completed and compensation is paid to the petitioner only insofar as 4 guntas of land is concerned. On 6-12-2005, after about 18 years of issue of final notification, an award is passed in respect of acquisition of petitioner’s land. In the award it is indicated that out of 6 acres and 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.31/3, only 1 acre 27 guntas of land is vacant. Hence, the award was restricted only to the vacant land of 1 acre 27 guntas. Here again, it is the averment in the petition that the name of the petitioner was not shown in the award, either as owner or person interested. 3.4. On 16-08-2006, a Notification is issued under Section 16(2) of the LA Act which shows that 3 guntas of petitioner’s land was acquired by the National Highways Authorities and the 6 notification confirms that possession of petitioner’s land measuring 7 guntas is taken over by the National Highways Authorities. The petitioner then owing to constant apprehension of acquisition either without payment of compensation or otherwise, institutes O.S.No.25858 of 2008 before the civil Court seeking perpetual injunction, fearing threat of dispossession by the BDA. The suit is entertained and status quo is directed to be maintained by the parties. On 15-09-2011, the BDA sought to demolish the building situated in the land of the petitioner, despite the order of status quo. It is after the said incident the present petition is filed seeking to quash the final notification insofar as the land of the petitioner is concerned, on the score that the Scheme had lapsed and also sought consequential directions. 3.5. Several petitions were filed challenging the said acquisition. All the petitions were clubbed together and the matter was withdrawn by the Division Bench, as identical matters were pending before the Division Bench. On 16-06-2023 the Division Bench dismisses the subject writ petition holding that award was passed on 14-10-2005, land was already taken possession and sites 7 after formation are already allotted to general public. It was further held that the petitioners therein had not demonstrated as to how the Scheme had not been implemented and the construction of Kalyana Mantapa after issuance of final notification was in violation of law. 3.6. On 10-07-2023 after looking into the order, the petitioner files a review petition in R.P.No.321 of 2023 challenging the dismissal of the present writ petition. The Division bench allows the review petition, recalls the order dated 16-06-2023 and restores the present petition to file. It is thus, the present petition is back to the hands of this Court for re-hearing. 4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that award is passed in respect of 1 acre 27 guntas, which itself is discriminatory as there is no reason as to how a layout can be formed within 1 acre 27 guntas. Several other parcels of land of several other measurements belonging to other persons are de-notified from acquisition proceedings. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 11 of the LA Act on 13-02-1987, 8 but the award dated 06-12-2005 does not indicate the name of the petitioner. No award notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the LA Act. The petitioner becomes aware of the award when the BDA filed its written statement in O.S.No.25858 of 2008. The acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 27 of the Act, since the proposed Scheme has not been implemented even after 5 years from the date of final notification. There is a delay of 18 years from the date of issuance of final notification to the date of passing of the award. 4.2. In terms of the mahazar drawn, the learned counsel would submit that possession was purportedly taken on 24-08- 2006, but the BDA sought to take possession of the land only on 15-09-2011. The award dated 06-12-2005 wrongly hold that vacant area of petitioner’s land is acquired leaving upon the built-up area. The learned counsel submits that the present writ petition was previously tagged with Writ Appeal No.4583 of 2011 and connected matters. The said writ appeals were also pertaining to the formation of HSR Layout. Those appeals came to be allowed and the preliminary notification and the final notification qua those petitions 9 were quashed and the SLP against the said order comes to be dismissed. On all these grounds, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the petition. 5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the BDA would submit that the preliminary notification was issued on 15-12-1984. Upon becoming aware of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner cannot claim that she was ignorant of acquisition proceedings and challenge it in the year 2011. The petitioner had filed her objections when notice was issued under Sections 11 and 14 of the LA Act. However, the petitioner neither challenged the acquisition proceedings nor availed any remedy available in law. All that the petitioner did was filing a suit in O.S.No.25858 of 2008, due to which the BDA could not take possession. The Kalyan Mantapa was constructed after issuance of final notification, when the property had vested with the BDA. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the relief on the ground that the Scheme has lapsed. 5.2. The learned counsel submits that once the land is vested in the State in terms of Section 16 of the LA Act, the acquisition will 10 not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the Scheme under Section 27 of the Act. Non-issuance of notice under Section 16(2) of the LA Act to the petitioner would not vitiate the acquisition. The delay in passing the award also is not a ground to hold that acquisition proceedings have lapsed. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events are all a matter of record, which would not require any reiteration. It is an admitted fact that the name of the petitioner is not found either in the preliminary notification or the final notification. On coming to know of the fact that a preliminary notification was issued, objections were filed by the petitioner on 25-03-1985, albeit beyond the statutory period of 30 days. No notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner even under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, to hear the petitioner on passing of the award. A public notice was issued to all and sundry or all the stake holders. Looking at that, 11 the petitioner filed objections to the acquisition proceedings. The award is passed on 6-12-2005. But, the name of the petitioner is not included in the award. No award notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act is issued to the petitioner. These are admitted facts. 8. The award clearly shows that only vacant land in Sy.No.31/3 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas is acquired. The contention of the petitioner is that no parcel of land is vacant, as it is already developed. On these very objections, at one point in time prior to passing of the order, a joint inspection had been conducted. It becomes necessary to notice the report of joint inspection. The report of joint inspection reads as follows: “JOINT INSPECTION OF SALAO & EE PROJECT We have jointly inspected Sy.No.31/3 of Rupena Agrahara on 8-10-1990.This survey number measures 6 acres 26 guntas. The following structures were existing on this land at the time of our inspection. (1) A.C. Sheet roofed houses. - 31 (2) R.C.C. Houses. - 2 (3) M.T.R. Houses - 1 Kalyana Mantap (4) Stone/revitted D.W.Wells - (5) Cement ringed D.W. Wells - 4 (6) Stone foundation - (7) Several types of structures - 12 The above structures are scattered all over this survey number without leaving any vacant land. It is not possible to bifurcate the vacant land built up area. In our opinion this survey number should be deleted from Notification. This land is partly covered with structures, leaving some vacant land. In our opinion, the vacant land measuring 2.39 guntas may be acquired after leaving the built-up area measuring 3.27 guntas.” (Emphasis added) This was the report of joint inspection that took place detailing that structures are scattered all over Sy.No.31/3 measuring 6 acres 26 guntas without leaving any vacant land. It was further opined that it was not possible to bifurcate the vacant land and built up area. The final opinion was that this Survey No. 31/3 measuring 6 acres 26 guntas should be deleted from the notification. However, it is also stated in the joint inspection report that the vacant land to the extent of 2 acres 39 guntas could be acquired after leaving the built up area measuring 3 acres 27 guntas. 9. One factor would become unmistakably clear that the petitioner was in possession of the property and had put up construction. The joint inspection was conducted by officers of the 13 BDA itself. If the facts are fast forwarded to the date of award on 14-10-2005, the award is passed under Section 12 of the LA Act in respect of 1 acre 27 guntas and the award comes to be approved on 06-12-2005. The award indicates that out of 6 acres 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.31/3 only 1 acre 27 guntas of land is vacant and hence the award is restricted only to the said extent of 1 acre 27 guntas. The land is included, but name of the petitioner is no where found in the award, either as owner or person interested. Notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was never issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the award, ostensibly so, that the name of the petitioner does not figure anywhere right from the preliminary notification till passing of the award. 10. The acquisition proceedings of adjacent lands under the very scheme had become the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.4583 of 2011 & Connected cases. The Division Bench on the score that acquisition proceedings have lapsed, quashes the notifications by the following judgment: “…. …. …. 4. The singular issue, which arises for consideration in these writ appeals and the writ petitions is 'whether the authority is required to conclude the proceedings for acquisition 14 of land initiated by it within a reasonable time?'. Therefore, all the aforesaid writ petitions and writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts from W.A.No.4583/2011 are being referred to. 5. The appellants claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy.No.52/3A measuring 11,560 square feet situated at Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The Authority required the land held by the appellants as well as several other lands for formation of a layout. Therefore, the proceedings for acquisition of the aforesaid land were initiated for formation of scheme. 6. The Authority issued a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on 15.12.1984 and thereafter, a final notification under Section 19 of the Act was issued on 28.11.1986. However, the Authority neither passed an award nor took possession of the land in question. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition on 27.08.2010, in which petitioners inter alia sought quashment of the preliminary as well the final notifications dated 17.01.1985 and 28.11.1986 respectively, on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the land acquisition proceeding. 7. The Learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 04.03.2011 inter alia held that there is a delay in conclusion of the land acquisition proceeding. However, the Learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'RAM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA', (1994) 1 SCC 44, held that the appellants are entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% of the market value. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was disposed of. In the aforesaid factual background, these intra court appeals as well as the writ petitions arise for our consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAM CHAND supra. It is further submitted that a division bench of this court has held that the proceedings initiated by the Authority in respect of scheme in relation to the land involving in that case, has held that the 15 scheme had already lapsed. In this connection, reference has been made to the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by a division bench of this court in W.P.No.26920/2010 (CHIKKATAYAPPA REDDY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER). It is pointed out that the finding recorded by the Learned Single Judge that the appellants have locus to seek the relief of quashment of land acquisition proceeding, has not been assailed by the Authority. It is urged that the Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that despite lapse of 24 years, neither any award was passed nor any explanation was offered by the Authority for not passing the award within reasonable time and therefore, the Learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the land acquisition proceedings in relation to the land held by the appellants. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Authority has supported the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and it has been submitted that the Learned Single Judge has rightly moulded the relief claimed by the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued on 15.12.1984, which was followed by a final notification on 28.11.1986, which was issued under Section 19 of the Act. However despite, a period of 24 years till 2010 neither any award was passed by the Authority nor the possession of the land in question was taken from the appellants. 11. The Supreme Court held that in view of decision in 'AFLATOON V LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI, (1975) 4 SCC 285, there was no justification for not passing the award and by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, it was held that two years period would be a reasonable time for making an award, as for when the statute does not prescribe a time limit for performing an Act, the same has to be performed within reasonable time. 12. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and no citizen can be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. It is 16 well settled legal proposition that where a statute does not provide for time limit for doing an Act, such an Act has to be done within a reasonable time, and what would be reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the Act. [See: 'MEHER RUSI DALAL V UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K. SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC 574 AND 'K.B NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC 483]. Thus from the aforesaid well settled legal position, it is evident that the proceedings under the Act have to be concluded within a reasonable time. 13. In the instant case, admittedly, even after a period of 24 years neither the land acquisition proceedings were completed by passing the award nor the possession of the land was taken. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the Authority for the inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings under the Act. Therefore, we hold that there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay in concluding the land acquisition proceedings. 14. Now we may advert to the relief, which the appellants are entitled. In RAM CHAND AND OTHERS supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a situation prevailing prior to amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the aforesaid case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act were issued on 23.01.1959, 24.10.1961, 16.05.1966 and 13.01.1969 respectively. However, no awards were passed till 1980. In view of the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 25 of the judgment held as under: 25. There appears to be some force in the contention of the petitioners that the object of respondents was to peg the price of the lands acquired from the different cultivators to a distant past and not to proceed further because if the awards had been made soon after the declarations under Section 6, respondents had to pay or tender the compensation to the claimants, which for some compulsion, respondents were not in a position to pay or tender them. But, nonetheless, the 17 exercise of power in the facts and circumstances 14 (1992) 1 SCC 684 15 (1992) 1 SCC 328 16 (1992) 4 SCC 243: JT (1992) 5 SC 136 17 AIR 1988 SC 2134 18 (1991) 4 SCC 584: AIR 1992 SC 248 of the cases by the respondents has to be held to be against the spirit of the provisions of the Act, tending towards arbitrariness. In such a situation this Court in exercise of power under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226, could have quashed the proceedings. But, taking into consideration that in most of the cases, the Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority have taken possession of the lands and even developments have been made, it shall not be proper exercise of discretion on the part of this Court to quash the proceedings because, in that event, it shall affect the public interest. Moreover, third party interests created in the meantime are also likely to be affected and such third parties are not impleaded. The relief of quashing the acquisition proceeding having become inappropriate due to the subsequent events, the grant of a modified relief, considered appropriate in the circumstances, would be the proper course to adopt. The High Court or this Court, can grant a modified relief taking into consideration the injury caused to the claimants by the inaction on the part of respondents and direct payment of any additional amount, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. 15. Thus, Hon'ble The Supreme Court clearly held that in any case there is an inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings, it in exercise of powers under Article 32 as well as this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the land acquisition proceedings. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not quash the proceedings in case of RAM CHAND supra on the ground that in most of the cases Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority had taken possession of the land and had developed the land. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court moulded the relief and directed payment of additional compensation. 16. The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAM CHAND supra has no application to the facts of the case as in the instant case admittedly, the possession of the land has neither been taken nor any development on 18 the land have been made by the Authority. The lands are admittedly in possession of the appellants. 17. It is also pertinent to mention that a division bench of this court by an order dated 28.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.26920/2010 in respect of the very same scheme viz., HSR Layout quashed the land acquisition proceeding on the ground that the award has not been passed within reasonable time. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, the authority has not filed a appeal. 18. So far as the submission with regard to locus of the appellants to question the land acquisition proceeding is concerned, suffice it to say that the Learned Single Judge by placing reliance on a division bench decision of this court in 'SMT.NAGUBAI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', ILR 2001 KAR 1169 has held that the appellants have locus to maintain the proceedings. The Authority has not challenged the aforesaid finding by filing a cross objection. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this aspect of the matter. In view of the preceding analysis, the orders dated preliminary as well as final notifications dated 15.12.1984 and 28.11.1986 in W.P.No.26972/2010, W.P.No.28549/2010 W.P.No.36667/2011, and W.P.No.59675/2014 are set aside. The preliminary as well as final notifications dated 15.12.1984 and 28.11.1986 insofar as it pertains to the land of the appellants and the petitioners are hereby quashed on the ground that the authority has failed to conclude the land acquisition proceeding within reasonable time inasmuch as no award was passed after a period of 24 years from the date of publication of final notification. In the result, the appeals as well as writ petitions are allowed.” Following the said judgment, a subsequent Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.4567 of 2011 passes the following judgment: “…. …. …. 19 2. In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26849/2010 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been allowed in part and the appellant has been held entitled to payment of additional compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.52/3A measuring 2 acres and 11 guntas situated at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The aforesaid land as well as other lands were required for the purpose of formation of HSR Layout. 4. Thereupon, a preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 was issued and thereafter, a final notification was issued on 28.11.1986. However, after a period of 24 years, an award was passed on 12.05.2010. 5. The appellant challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated for acquisition of his land by way of a writ petition. Learned Single Judge inter alia held that there was a delay in concluding the proceedings pertaining to land in question and therefore, held that the appellant is entitled to payment of additional compensation at the rate of 12% on the market value. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.A.No.4583/2011 as well as other connected matters. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Authority submitted that even though there was a delay in passing the award, the compensation of the award has been taken on 22.07.2010. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. 8. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and no citizen can be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. It is well settled legal 20 proposition that where a statute does not provide for time limit for doing an Act, such an Act has to be done within a reasonable time, and what would be reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the Act. [See:'MEHER RUSI DALAL V UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K. SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC 574 AND 'K.B NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC 483]. 9. Thus from the aforesaid well settled legal position, it is evident that the proceedings under the Act have to be concluded within a reasonable time. 10. In the instant case, preliminary notification was issued on 15.12.1984 whereas the final notification was issued on 28.11.1986. However, after a period of 24 years, the award was passed on 12.05.2010. Thus, there has been an inordinate delay in passing the award. The proceedings under the land acquisition Act has not been concluded within a reasonable time. The award therefore insofar as it pertains to land in question held by the appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. It is pertinent to note that the possession of the land in question has been taken on 22.07.2010. However, no mahazar has been placed on record to indicate that the possession of the land in question has been taken. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.02.2023 has considered the question of grant of relief to which the land owners are entitled. 12. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed in W.A.No.4583/2011, as well as for the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26849/2010 is hereby set aside. The preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984, final notification dated 28.11.1986 as well as award dated 12.05.2010 insofar as it pertains to land held by the appellant is hereby quashed. In the result, appeal is allowed.” 21 The BDA challenges these orders before the Apex Court. The Apex Court rejects the SLP on 09-10-2023 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.21328 of 2023 by the following order: “1. Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 3. However, question of law is kept open.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) The issue now would be, whether the petitioner would get the benefit of those orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court against which the Special Leave Petition also has been rejected. 11. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner was not issued any notice prior to or after passing of the award as is necessary under law. In the light of admitted facts, as noted hereinabove and the judgments of the Division Bench quashing acquisition notifications, the subject petition deserves to succeed with the prayers to be granted. 22 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The preliminary notification dated 15-12-1984 and the final notification dated 28-11-1986 both issued by the 2nd respondent/Bangalore Development Authority stand quashed, insofar as the lands of the petitioner are concerned, only if the BDA has not taken over physical possession of the property, developed the property and allotted it to third parties. (ii) In the above event, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In the event, none of the above have happened, the possession of the land with the petitioner shall not be disturbed, as acquisition proceedings have been obliterated on the reasons 23 rendered by the Division Bench concerning adjacent lands. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ