1. In all these writ petitions, common question arises for consideration. Material facts leading to these writ petitions and the contentions raised are similar. Therefore, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.Nos.32950-951/2015 are filed by owners of land bearing Sy.No.154 which totally measures 1 acre 10 guntas and is situated at Ullalu Village in Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The entire extent of 1 acre 10 guntas comprised in this survey number has been acquired for formation of Sir M.Visweswaraiah Layout along with several other lands. Preliminary notification was issued on 15.04.2002 followed by final declaration dated 31.10.2002. They were issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’). Award was passed on 05.12.2002 which was approved on 03.01.2003. According to the stand taken by the BDA the amount has been kept in “R.D. Account” of the BDA.

3. Petitioners have approached this Court laying a challenge to the acquisition proceedings and seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed in terms of the provisions contained under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the New Act’).

4. Main contention of learned Senior counsel for petitioners is that though these lands were included in the notification and although nearly 13 years had lapsed as on the date of filing of the writ petition, neither compensation was paid nor possession was taken, therefore, it was a clear case of abandonment of the acquisition. It is further contended that respondent – Authorities had not formed any residential layout in and around petitioners’ land as per the scheme; several adjacent properties situated abutting the land of petitioners were denotified after final notification was issued.

5. In paragraph 8 of the grounds urged in these writ petitions, petitioners have contended that BDA had formed road using 29¾ guntas of land out of total extent of 1 acre 10 guntas and that they were not challenging the use of land for road. Even during the course of arguments, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners – Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy submits that petitioners do not claim any right in respect of the land measuring 29¾ guntas used for formation of road but were asserting their rights in respect of remaining portion of vacant land where petitioners had put up construction and possession of which had not been taken.

6. In support of the contention that possession of vacant portion of the land was not taken over, he invites the attention of the Court to the rejoinder filed by petitioners enclosing the proceedings of the BDA dated 24.07.2014. In this proceeding, it is clearly recorded that Sy. No.154 totally measured 1 acre 10 guntas; entire land was subject matter of acquisition; out of the same, 29¾ guntas had been utilized for formation of road and remaining 20¼ guntas was vacant and there was a temple of Anjaneyaswamy in existence in the said portion and therefore, no layout had been formed in the said portion of the land. It is, therefore, urged by referring to this document that admittedly, as on 24.07.2014, possession of vacant land measuring 20¼ guntas had not been taken over and in addition, compensation payable was neither paid to petitioners nor deposited before the Civil Court, therefore, acquisition proceedings having not been completed it was a clear case of abandonment of acquisition by the BDA and resultant lapse of the same. He further points out that dehors Section 24(2) of the New Act, petitioners are entitled to seek such declaration.

7. The fact that compensation determined in respect of this land has not been paid is evident from the endorsement issued by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12.04.2016 which is produced before the Court along with a memo. In t