The Court emphasized that concerns about national security and irregularities in the sanctioning process must be carefully examined and addressed by the relevant authorities.

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, represented by its Estate Officer of Defence Research Development Organization (D.R.D.O) having its office at Bangalore is the petitioner herein preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP', for short) Respondent No.2 dated 3.10.2011 and plan sanctioned by the Respondent No.3 Town Planning Authority dated 3.11.2011 and further sought direction to Respondent No.2 BBMP to refer the application of the Respondent No.4 to Government for necessary action and sought writ of mandamus to the Respondent No.1, the Principal Secretary of Karnataka Urban Development Department to consider Annexure-P2 & P3 applications of Poorvankar Project Ltd., dated 4.8.2011 in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961 and revised Master Plan 2015. The direction is also sought to the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, Government of Karnataka and B B M P not to permit high rise buildings within 100 meters from C.A.I.R and D.R.D.O Campus of Defence Research Laboratories at C.V.Raman Nagar, Bangalore. For the establishment of Defence Research Laboratories by D.R.D.O, Government of India, the first respondent Government of Karnataka acquired lands for their benefit and notifications were issued to acquire an extent of 113 acres 16.5 guntas vide Notifications dated 22.1.1987 and 30.5.1989 respectively u/s 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. But acquisitions were challenged by the land owners and the said writ petitions and writ appeals were dismissed by upholding the acquisition of lands in W.A. Nos.2189 and 97/1992 and W Ps. No.13653-665/1989 were dismissed by the order dated 15/22.4.1993. Against the order passed in W A and writ petitions, the land owners filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2635-42/1996 and the said appeals were dismissed by upholding the notifications issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notification and handed over 42 acres of land to D.R.D.O and remaining extent of 57 acres was not handed over. Instead of handing over 57 acres to the D.R.D.O the Government has issued de-notification u/s 48 of the Act. The said notification was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.38638-646/1998 which was dismissed and the said order was challenged in W.A. Nos.2002-2010/2000 and the writ appeals were allowed, de-notification was set aside and Government was directed to handover the remaining extent of land to the petitioner by its order dated 24.8.2000.

3. The said order passed in writ appeals was challenged by the owners in Civil Appeal No.6362-6368/2001 and the said appeals were disposed on the basis of the joint memo filed by the parties wherein Union of India would give 50% of the lands in question to the land owners. The petitioner again filed Review Petition No.793-797, 804/2006 and 810/2006 seeking review of the said portion of the order which came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 9.7.2010. By virtue of the order on Joint Memo, lands were handed over to the G P A holder of the owner one N.H. Rustumji in respect of 12 acres 01 gunta of land.

4. The petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of the petitioners since they were poor, houseless, they require the land for their families so that they can have their residential houses. It is learnt that the GPA holder clandestinely focused the petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to gain its sympathy on their behalf. Within a short span of time, the reasons for entering into a joint memo was disappeared and land owners were misled and the GPA holder became the real owner of the property. The power of attorney becomes the holder of the lands and the real owners were withered away.

5. There was an agreement entered into be