The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of acquisition proceedings under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was not justified when the State Government had already taken possession of the land.

( 1 ) W. P. Nos. 9517, 10875 to 10892, 9518 and 10856 to 10873 of 1999 are filed by the persons claiming to be erstwhile landowners of the land in survey Nos. 20 and 21 of Boopasandra Village seeking for review of the order dated 23-9-1996 passed by this Court in W. P. No. 37719 to 37725 of 1992, W. P. Nos. 3216, 3217, 11001 and 23205 of 1993, W. P. Nos. 32221 of 1992, W. P. Nos. 15718 and 6254 of 1996.

( 2 ) W. P. No. 20696 of 2000 is filed by the purchasers of sites in the above said survey numbers seeking for quashing of allotment of sites made in favour of contesting respondents by the Bangalore Development authority, hereinafter referred to as the "bda".

( 3 ) THE facts in this case are as follows: the State Government issued the notification dated 19-1-1988 proposing to acquire land measuring 3 acres in Survey No. 20 and 3 acres 4 guntas in Survey No. 21 of Boopasandra Village. This notice was followed by a final notification dated 29-4-1992 issued under Section 19 (1) of the BDA Act. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 25-4-1994 determining the market value of the lands in question. The case of the B. D. A. is that after passing of the award, the state Government has taken possession of the land and handed over the same to the B. D. A. on 24-10-1987. The fact of taking possession has also been notified by the State Government by issuing a notification dated 16-7-1988 under Section 16 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Official Gazette dated 3-11-1988. Thereafter, at the instance of some persons who are said to be the landowners, the State Government issued a notification dated 27-8-1992 under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition act withdrawing the acquisition proceedings in respect of the above said two survey numbers. This notification was questioned by the persons claiming to be the allottees of the site by the B. D. A. on the ground that the Government has no power to withdraw the acquisition proceedings after taking over possession under the provisions of the Land Acquisition act in W. P. Nos. 37719 to 37725 of 1992 and other connected matters. The said writ petitions were allowed by this Court by order dated 23rd September, 1996 quashing the notification issued under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. This order has made the petitioners to come to this Court by way of these present writ petitions for review of the order passed in the above said writ petitions as they were not parties in the writ petitions referred to above. From the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 37719 to 37725 of 1992 and other connected matters, it is seen that Jamiya Masjid who is claiming to be the owner of these survey numbers, as seen from the records, is made a party. If this Jamiya Masjid is a party in the said writ petitions, they cannot maintain these writ petitions as it was open for the said Masjid to challenge the order passed in the said writ petitions by way of an appeal if it is aggrieved of the said order. Therefore, so far as the Jamiya masjid is concerned, the Writ Petition seeking for review of the order passed in the Writ Petition Nos. 37719 to 37725 of 1992 is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9517 of 1999 is claiming to be the owner of the land in Survey No. 20. His name has not been shown as owner as seen from the notifications issued under Sections 17 (1) and 19 ( 1) of the Act. The name of this petitioner is also not shown in the notification issued under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. From this notification it is seen that the withdrawal of acquisition proceedings is not for the benefit of Syed Bashit who is petitioner in Writ petition No. 9517 of 1999.

( 5 ) SRI Ravivama Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petitions filed by the allottees challenging the notification issued under Section 48 (1) of the Act were not maintainable and therefore this Cou