( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1993 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O. S. No. 5988/ 1989. By the said judgment, the learned Additional City Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) WHEN the matter has come up for admission, the learned Counsel on both sides submitted that the matter may be taken up for final disposal. It is under these circumstances, the appeal was taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under :plaintiff-APPELLANT filed the aforesaid suit before the lower Court praying for a judgment and decree declaring the preliminary notification hearing No. HC. PR. ALAO 389 BDA 76-77, dated 21-3-1977 and published in the official gazette dated 5-5-1977 and the final notification No. HUD/49/mnj/78, dated 14-5-1980 and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 12-6-1980 so far as they relate to the suit schedule property are null and void and that the same do not bind the plaintiff in any manner and for permanent injuntion restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the suit schedule property. According to plaintiff, she is the owner of I acre 36 guntas of land described in the schedule Sy. No. 14/ 2 (old Sy. No. 14) situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk. She purchased the same from its previous owner K. Narayanamma and others under a registered sale deed dated 24-2-1979. It is her case that the said land along with the other lands were proposed for being acquired by the defendant by the issue of preliminary notification and final notification referred to above, but no notice under Section 17 (5) of the B. D. A. Act (for short the Act) was issued to her. It is also her case that she had made number of representations to the 1 st defendant to drop the proceedings and had also filed an application for regularisation of the suit schedule property, since according to her it was clearly covered the construction and building as also a factory. She has stated that she has put up 80 squares of RCC building consisting of ground floor, first and second floors, 36 squares of ACC roofing poultry sheds, servant quarters, bore well and a factory thereon and all these constructions, according to her, were put up in the year 1982-83, long prior to 31-3-1986. It is her case that such constructions can neither be acquired nor demolished in view of Government Order dated 12-10-1987. Plaintiff has also alleged in her plaint that the suit land is covered by the provisions of the Land Revenue Act as also by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 and under the provisions of the said Act, plaintiff is entitled to retain the existing constructions as well as the vacant land in the suit schedule property. It is disclosed by the plaintiff that she had earlier filed a suit at O. S. No. 10660/ 85 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore with regard to the suit schedule property as against the 1st defendant but the said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. According to plaintiff, the officials of defendant are trying to demolish the construction made on the suit land though they are not entitled to do so. The legal notice dated 11-8-1989 issued by her as required under Section 64 of the Act did not have any effect on them. It is under these circumstances and on these allegations plaintiff filed the suit in question for the reliefs referred to hereinabove.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted both by the 1st defendant as also by the 2nd defendant. Defendant-1 B. D. A. , in substance, took up the stand that Sy. No. 14 of Kacharakanahalli village was acquired for the formation of Banasawadi - Hennur Road Layout and in that behalf preliminary notification and final notification referred to in para No. 2 of the written statement were issued. It is pointed out that the award was passed on 28-2-1