( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 6 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1a of Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said land was proposed for acquisition along with other lands for the formation of Bogadi extension by issuing a notification dated 25-6-1987 under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'act' ). This was followed by a final notification dated 25-6-1988 issued under Section 19 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, an award was passed on 11-1-1989, but possession was not taken immediately after passing of the award. The petitioner has no grievance so far as the acquisition is concerned in view of his own letter written by him to the 2nd respondent-Development Authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings only because there is an unreasonable delay in taking possession for the purpose of implementing the scheme. In the case on hand, the award was passed on 11-1-1989 and the award notice was also issued on 13-9-1991. After the passing of the award and after issuance of notice of award, the possession of the land of the petitioner was taken only on 23-3-2002 i. e. , almost after a lapse of more than 13 years from the date of passing of the award. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though an award was passed, compensation was not paid to the petitioner. On these facts, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed consequent on not implementing the scheme within five years from the date of the final notification.

( 2 ) SECTION 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act reads as follows:"27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years. Where within a period of five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19, the Authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of section 36 shall become inoperative". By reading of the above said section, it is clear that the scheme that has been framed by the Authority is required to be executed substantially within five years from the date of the notification issued under Section 19 (1) of the Act. As stated earlier a notification under Section 19 was issued on 25-6-1988. If that is so, even though the State Government has acquired large extent of land including the land of the petitioner for the purpose of executing the scheme framed by it, the State Government ought to have taken possession immediately after the issuance of the notification under Section 19 (1) of the Act for the purpose of execution of the scheme. In the instant case, for a period of more than 13 years, the government or the Authority has not taken any steps to take possession of the land in question. From this, it is seen that every landowner reasonably believed that the Authorities are not interested in taking possession of the land for the purpose of executing the scheme. Even otherwise, when the notification issued under Section 19 (1) is of the year 1988 at least, the State Government would have taken possession of the land of the petitioner within five years along with the other lands and would have taken steps to execute the scheme. In the instant case, as the State Government had not taken steps to take possession for a period of 14 years from the date of the final notification, I am of the view that so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

( 3 ) SRI H. C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the decision in the case of Kanthamma and Another v State of Karnataka and Another1 and the decision of the Division Bench in the case of M. B. Ramachandran v State of Karnataka and Others, and submitted that if the Authority has taken steps to execute the scheme, within five years from the