The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of revision under Section 63 of the BDA Act cannot nullify the sanctioned scheme by the first respondent.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts in respect of sites in the layout formed by the second respondent in sy. Nos. 174 and 175 of ketamaranahally, now known as "further extension of mahalakshmi layout". W. p. nos. 5490 to 5494 of 1991 and W. P. 27338 of 1991 are filed by the allottees of the sites. W. p. nos. 6446 to 6456 of 1989 are filed by respondents 3 and 4 challenging the validity of the allotment of the sites by the second respondent.

( 2 ) THE parties are referred to hereinafter by their respectivepositions in W. P. nos. 5490 to 5494 of 1991.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: the aforesaidtwo sy. Nos. Measuring 26 acres 25 guntas were notified for acquisition under notification, dated 25-3-1975 issued under Section 16 (1) of the city of Bangalore improvement Act, 1945 for extension of mahalakshmi layout. The said preliminary notification was followed by the final notification, dated 15-7-1977 published in the Karnataka gazette, dated 4-8-1977. Out of the above 26 acres 25 guntas of land, 8 acres 16 guntas was owned by the third respondent and 3 acres was owned by respondent 4. The fourth respondent is a subsidiary of the third respondent company. Apart from respondents 3 and 4, there were others who owned certain extent of land notified for acquisition.

( 4 ) W. P. No. 7239 of 1983 was filed by two persons seekingquashing of the aforesaid notification. By order dated 30-7-1986 a learned single judge of this court after examining the original records found that several persons had voluntarily surrendered possession of the land owned by them and such surrender of land was accepted by the assistant engineer of the second respondent and that an award was passed on 8-5-1987. The relief sought in the said writ petition was mainly on the ground that the scheme formulated by the second respondent under the Provisions of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976, (for short 'the bda act') had lapsed on the allegation that the scheme has not been substantially executed in five years from the date of publication of declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19. In the said writ petition it was also contended that possession taken by the second respondent in pursuance of voluntary surrender did not amount to taking possession in the eye of law, and that if taking of possession has to be legal it must have been taken only in accordance with the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, that is, in terms of Section 16 of the said act. This court in the aforesaid writ petition rejected both the contentions. This court held after taking note of the fact that in the entire area of 26 acres 25 guntas, 198 sites ought to have been formed but only 170 sites had been formed by them and that the sites formation was completed prior to the year 1982, and that the second respondent had paid Rs. 8,22,005/- to a certain company for the formation of the layout and that a sum of Rs. 3,48,000/- had been paid by the second respondent on 4-1-1982 towards water supply and Rs. 76,000/- towards underground drainage and, therefore, the scheme had been substantially executed and that there had been "no failure to execute the scheme substantially".

( 5 ) ON the question of taking possession, this court held thatthe parties having voluntarily delivered possession which was accepted by the second respondent cannot complain that taking of possession was illegal. The court observed that "if the dictum of volentia non fit injuria is applied, the petitioners having consented to a thing cannot complain of the injury; they having waived their right cannot complain of infringement. " the court rejected the contention that taking possession following voluntary delivery of possession by the parties is not taking of possession in accordance with law. On that basis the court held that once possession is taken and the land has vested in the government, it is not possible to withdraw from the acquisiti