The release of certain lands did not invalidate the entire land acquisition, and the allotment of land to housing co-operative societies did not breach the scheme. The authority's inability to execute the scheme was due to legal challenges and did not render the acquisition illegal.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals are directed against judgment dated february 20, 1992, delivered by learned single judge in writ petition No. 20377 of 1989. Writ appeal No. 693 of 1992 is preferred by the bangalore development authority, while the remaining two appeals are preferred by allottees of sites from the bangalore development authority. The allottees were not parties to the proceedings before the learned single judge. As the issue raised in all the three appeals is common, the appeals are disposed of by common judgment.

( 2 ) THE Karnataka legislature passed the bangalore development authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the act'), to provide for the establishment of a development authority for the development of the city of bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto and for the matters connected therewith. Section 3 of the ACT provides for constitution and incorporation of the authority to be called as the bangalore development authority. The authority is a body corporate and was constituted to promote and secure the development of the bangalore metropolitan area. Section 14 confers upon the authority the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of movable and immovable property. Section 15 of the ACT confers power upon the authority to draw up schemes for the development of the area and with the previous approval of the government, undertake from time to time any works for the development. Section 16 of the ACT provides that every development scheme shall provide for the acquisition of any land which, in the opinion of the authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme. The scheme should also provide for laying and relaying of buildings and formation and alteration of streets. Section 17 of the ACT sets out the procedure on completion of the scheme and, inter alia, sets out that after the scheme is prepared, the authority shall publish it in the official gazette and in some conspicuous part of the office. After receipt of the objections from the persons likely to be affected by the scheme, the scheme is finalised. The scheme is required to be sanctioned by the state government. Chapter iv of the ACT deals with the subject 'acquisition of land'. Section 35 confers power upon the authority to acquire land by agreement and Section 36 provides that in case the land could not be acquired by agreement, then the authority can acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 3 ) IN accordance with the power conferred under Section 17 of the Act, preliminary notification dated january 3, 1977, was published in the official gazette on february 24, 1977, providing for acquisition of 1334 acres and 12 guntas of land from villages of mathikere, chickmaranahalli, dyavasandra, poornapura, lotte gollahalli, nagashettyhalli, geddalahalli and vyalikaval. The public purpose mentioned in the notification was for rajmahal vilas, ii stage layout. It is not in dispute that the scheme was for providing housing to the members of the public. The final notification dated august 2, 1978, was published on august 31,1978, and the final notification refers to the proposed acquisition of the entire area of 1334 acres and 12 guntas. Respondent 1 is the owner of 5 pieces of land situated at village : lotte gollahalli, poornapura and mathikere. The total area of these five pieces of land admeasures 4 acres 13 guntas. After the publication of the final notification, the proceedings commenced for acquisition under the land acquisition ACT and awards were declared in respect of the lands of respondent 1 between december 20, 1981, and september 23, 1986. It is the claim of the authority that possession was secured in respect of these pieces in pursuance of six awards declared between may 19,1982, and october 29,1986.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT 1 filed petition before the learned single judge on november 2, 1989, under Article 226 of the constitution claiming a writ of mandamus restraining the autho