( 1 ) THE first set of these petitions are listed for preliminary hearing and the second set are posted for orders. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, they are heard on merits and disposed of by this order.

( 2 ) ). The petitioners are stated to be the holders of agreements of sale executed by respondents 5 to 12 in their favour in respect of different sites in Sy. Nos. 403/2b, 408/2b+2a/2, 406/4, 392/2c+3b/3, 399/4, 396/2 and 397/3, 398/3+4/a, 499/1a+1b/2/1 and 15/1/1a+1b+2a+2b+2c situated in Unkal Village, Hubli Taluk. The aforesaid lands alongwith other lands were notified for acquisition pursuant to the scheme prepared by the third respondent. After complying with the provisions of Sections 17 (5) and 18, a declaration is also issued u/s. 19 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987. The owners of the aforesaid lands have formed sites and agreed to transfer the same in favour of the petitioners after the publication of the preliminary notification and receipt of notice u/s. 17 (5) of the Urban Development Authorities Act. The petitioners contend that, they are put in possession of respective sites agreed to be sold in their favour and they have also put up certain constructions. They were not aware of the acquisition proceedings; they came to know of the acquisition proceedings when they received notices under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The petitioners have, therefore, filed these petitions for quashing the acquisition proceedings and also the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Annexures B and B1 and the notices issued under the provisions of the Planning Act as per Annexure-E and E1, with a further writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to regularise the unauthorised constructions of buildings on plot numbers and survey numbers shown by the petitioners.

( 3 ) IN view of the decision of this Court in Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society v. Bailamma alias Dodda Bailamma, ILR 1998 Kant 1441 : (1998 AIHC 2358), the petitioners have no locus to assail the acquisition proceedings and the consequences thereof. These petitions in so far as they relate to the challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the impugned notices as per Annexures D, D1, E and E1 are liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners have no locus-standi to question the correctness of the same.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have, however, contended that, they are entitled for regularisation of their unauthorised constructions in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions In Urban Areas Act, 1991 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). Sri. Chandangoudar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that, that in view of clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act, the sites belong to the petitioners and, therefore, they are entitled for regularisation of unauthorised constructions.

( 5 ) SECTION 3 of the Act deals with regularisation of unauthorised constructions and it reads thus :-"3. Regularisation 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any unauthorised construction made in any urban area, except those specified in Section 4, made prior to the 31st day of December 1995, by any person, on land, - (i) belonging to the State Government, or (ii) which is a revenue site owned by him; or (iii) belonging to him which is proposed to be acquired in connection with any development scheme of an Authority, in relation to which a notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, or under S. 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, or u/s. 15 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, is published and which has not yet vested in favour of any Authority for which the acquisition is proposed,may, on the application of such person made within