JUDGMENT

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - In this petition, petitioner seeks declaration that the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 31.05.1963 issued by the City Improvement Trust Board (for short 'the CITB') and the final notification dated 28.10.1971 issued by the State Government in respect of the subject land bearing Sy. No. 79 of Jarakabande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North taluk, measuring 4.01 acres have stood lapsed under Section 24(2)(ii) and 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013') have been abandoned and non est and for a direction to the respondents to restore possession of the subject land to the petitioners. Alternatively, petitioners have sought for a direction to pay compensation together with all consequential benefits to the petitioners in accordance with the said Act of 2013.

2. Briefly stated, the contentions urged by the petitioners are that the subject land was purchased by the petitioners and their predecessor in title vide registered sale deed dated 08.01.1964 and the same was converted for industrial purpose on 07.12.1964. On 07.01.1972, the owners filed an application with the CITB seeking permission to form a layout and the same was approved vide CITB Resolution bearing No. 698 dated 12.01.1972, pursuant to which, the predecessors of the petitioners executed an agreement dated 01.03.1972 in favour of the CITB. Accordingly, supervision and layout charges levied by the CITB was paid by them and the CITB sanctioned the layout plan on 08.01.1973. It is contended that the petitioners have acquired right over the subject land as detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition.

3. The petitioners contend that though a preliminary notification dated 31.05.1963 was purported to have been issued by the CITB including the subject land, petitioners or the previous owners were not aware of the same till a final notification dated 28.10.1971 was issued showing the name of G.B. Sadashivaiah, father of petitioners 1 to 3 against the subject land. It is contended that the aforesaid Resolution dated 12.01.1972 passed by the CITB, approval and sanction of the layout plan by the CITB, registered agreement dated 01.03.1972 executed between the predecessors of the petitioners and the CITB and other documents indicate that the subject land had been left out/excluded from the acquisition proceedings. It is further contended that no further acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary and final notifications have been taken by the respondents and no notice of the same has been passed; so also, the respondents have not passed any award in respect of the subject land.

4. Petitioners contend that when the respondent No. 4-APMC started interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the subject land, petitioners were constrained to institute a suit in O.S. No. 3241/1981 for permanent injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the allottees from the 4th respondent-APMC were arrayed as defendants 1 to 15, whilst the APMC, BDA and the State of Karnataka were arrayed as defendants 16, 17 and 18 respectively. In the said suit, the aforesaid defendants who are also the respondents herein specifically contended that pursuant to BDA Resolution, correspondence etc., the BDA had acquired the subject land and taken over possession of the same from the petitioners. It was contended that the BDA handed over possession of the subject land to the APMC who had allotted the same in favour of various persons. It is also contended that on 05.05.1981, the BDA had handed over possession to the 4th respondent APMC and a letter in this regard dated 05.05.1981 was produced.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter dated 05.05.1981, the petitioners herein preferred W.P. Nos. 22627-628/1982 against the BDA and APMC. It was contended that at the time of preferring this writ petition, the suit in O