1. The petitioners are said to be owners of land bearing survey no.264 measuring 6 acres 5 guntas at Hinkal, Kasaba hobli, Mysore Taluk and district. The said property is claimed to have been acquired by one Monda @ Thammaya, son of Venkata. The said property is said to have been mutated as "beellu" in the revenue records, as per Order dated 28.4.1988. Prior to the said date, the RTC in respect of the property is said to have reflected the name of Monda. The petitioners claim as the legal heirs of Monda.

The second respondent is said to have issued a notification dated 1.4.1981 proposing to acquire the property bearing Survey No. 264 measuring 6 .05 acres for the purpose of formation of a residential layout, Vijayanagar extension. In the notification, the name of the father of Monda, namely, Venkatasubbaiah was said to have been shown. And within brackets "beellu" was said to have been mentioned. The said notification was said to have been followed by a final notification dated 29.3.1984. The third respondent is said to have passed an award dated 21.4.1986. It is also stated that the above notifications were issued without obtaining prior sanction of the State government. It is however, indicated that there was a sanction granted as on 3.6.1999.

2. It is claimed that the petitioner has continued in possession of the property and that the fourth respondent has not taken possession of the land in question till date. This fact is claimed to be evident from the circumstance that there is a request made by the fourth respondent to the Deputy Commissioner to hand over possession of the land, as on 22.8.2003 The petitioners claim to have been unaware of the acquisition proceedings all along and sought for restoration of their name in the RTC. The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore, is said 10 have issued a direction in that regard, by his order dated 5.11.2011. The petitioners claim that it is only recently that the petitioners became aware of the acquisition proceedings and have immediately initiated these proceedings.

3. The learned Senior Advocate, Shri Ashok Harnahalli, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner, contends that the property is in the possession of the petitioner and the respondents have till date not developed the property by taking possession of the same. The respondents have failed to execute the Scheme by developing the property within the stipulated period. That even after a lapse of 28 years, the land has not been developed and the Scheme has hence lapsed.

That the fourth respondent has obtained sanction from the government after issuing the final notification. The sanction was accorded by the Government in the year 1989 whereas the acquisition notification was issued in the year 1984. The respondents could not have issued the final notification even before obtaining the sanction from the government. The subsequent sanction could not validate the acquisition notification.

It is contended that the preliminary notification was issued by the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), Mysore, without reference to any provision of law. However, in paragraph 3, thereof, reference is made to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The final notification, on the other hand, has been issued by the first respondent under the provisions of the Mysore Urban Development Authority Act, 1902 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'MUDA Act', for brevity). The said notifications issued under two different enactments and by different authorities are clearly bad in law.

It is contended that the second respondent is a "local authority" as per Section 3(h) of the LA Act. The said provision reads as under :

"(h) The expression "Local Authority" includes the Town Planning Authority and City Improvement Trust Board."

(See State amendment with effect from 24-8-1961)

Section 3(f)(vi) of the LA Act requires prior approval of the Government for carrying out any Scheme. There is no prior sanction in the instant case. The acquisiti