JUDGMENT/ORDER

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. - This review petition is filed by appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 seeking review of the judgment dtd. 23/4/2021 passed in W.A. No. 1089/2015 and to restore the said writ appeal to the original file.

2. The gist of the petitioners case is that the lands bearing Sy.Nos.53, 55/1, 59/1 and 59/2 of Nayandahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 24 guntas, 37 guntas and 31 guntas respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule Property) originally belonged to Sri. K. Siddaiah namely father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and grandfather of petitioner No. 3. He is said to have executed Deed of Conditional Sale dtd. 8/3/1973 in favour of one Sri. Lingaiah. It was further contended that on the same day said Sri. Lingaiah executed a registered deed of reconveyance in favour of Sri. K. Siddaiah agreeing to reconvey the schedule property.

3. A preliminary notification dtd. 22/2/1985 under Sec. 4(1) of the Act came to be issued for acquiring several lands including schedule property for and on behalf of ITI Employees Home Building Co- operative Society Ltd., (for short 'Society') respondent No. 5 herein, followed by final notification dtd. 28/2/1986 issued under Sec. 6(1) of the Act. An award came to be passed on 5/5/1987 and notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Act also came to be issued taking possession of the schedule lands.

4. Above said Sri. K. Siddaiah challenged the acquisition proceedings before the learned single judge in W.P. No. 7667/1989 which came to be dismissed on the ground he had no locus-standi to challenge the acquisition proposed as he had already sold the schedule lands. On the strength of a suit O.S. No. 476/1981 (O.S. No. 7/1974) filed by late Sri. K. Siddaiah, his wife and children against Sri. Lingaiah for specific performance of the deed of re-conveyance, suit came to be decreed on 27/3/2003 against which an appeal was filed by Sri. Lingaiah in R.F.A. No. 564/2003 which ended in dismissal and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 266/2004 filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court also came to be dismissed on 4/10/2016 and as such they claimed that they have continued to be in physical possession of the schedule lands. In other words, it was contended that notwithstanding the notifications issued under Sec. 4(1), 6(1) and 6(2) of the Act, they were not divested of physical possession of the lands. By relying upon the annexures appended to the writ petitions and contending inter alia that they are in actual physical possession of the schedule lands, they sought for declaring the proceedings for acquisition as having lapsed by deeming fiction of Sec. 24(2) of 2013 Act. Petitioners also sought to rely upon the acquisition proceedings initiated by Bangalore Development Authority to acquire the schedule lands and suit filed by the petitioners, which ended in a compromise whereunder BDA had agreed to allot one site to the petitioners. Hence, contending these developments would indicate the petitioners are in uninterrupted continued physical possession of the schedule lands and as such they are entitled to the protection available under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of 2013 Act, they sought for quashing of the notifications and acquisition proceedings. It was further pleaded in the writ petition that award amount has not been paid to them and as such reliefs prayed for in the writ petition ought to be granted.

5. Respondent No. 5 - Society filed its statement of objections and denied the averments made in the writ petition. It was contended that writ petition was not maintainable as it is barred by resjudicata, since father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and grandfather of petitioner No.3 had challenged the acquisition on the ground that he did not have notice of acquisition; as on date of final notification schedule lands were standing in the name of Sri. Lingaiah in whose favour father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and grandfather of petitioner No.3 had already sold the sche