ORDER :

(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)

Petitioners claiming to be the owners of subject property, are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition of the same vide Preliminary Notification dated 2.6.1978 issued under section 17(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 30.9.1980 issued under section 19(1) of the BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1976, essentially on the ground that the acquisition process has lapsed in view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They also have sought for voiding of the subject acquisition on the additional ground of lapsing of the scheme in terms of section 27 of the 1976 Act.

2. After service of notice, the respondent-State is represented by the learned AGA and the respondent-BDA & its Executive Engineer are represented by their Senior Panel Counsel. Similarly, the Slum Clearance Board speaks through its Panel Counsel. The allottees of the sites in question got themselves impleaded as respondents later and their Sr. Advocate also opposes the petition. Statements of Objections have been filed, resisting the Writ Petition.

3. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that his clients still continue to be in the possession of the subject land and that the scheme that comprised the same having not been substantially executed, the acquisition would statutorily lapse and as a consequence, the land needs to be reverted to his clients consistent with the law declared by the Apex Court in Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority , (2011) 3 SCC 139 . Learned advocates appearing for the respondents controvert the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and oppose the Writ Petition inter alia on the grounds of delay & latches, culpable conduct of the petitioners, the findings recorded in the earlier Writ Petition and the execution of scheme having already been accomplished, the sites have been allotted to the impleaded respondents. All the advocates appearing for the respondents make submission in justification of the impugned acquisition. They seek dismissal of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter with exemplary costs for the following reasons:

A. As To Delay & Latches:

The subject land was acquired pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 2.6.1978 followed by the Final Notification dated 30.9.1980 under sections 17(1) & 19(1) of the 1976 Act. The award having been passed, the award notice was issued to the predecessor in title Mr. A. Krishnamurthy who is none other than the father of petitioner no.3. The possession of the land was taken on 30.05.1990. With the land in question along with the other, the formation of the layout was accomplished. Adverting to all this, the earlier challenge to the acquisition came to be negatived by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.No.1978/1992 disposed off vide judgment dated 14.07.1992. That being the position, the present petition inter alia duplicating the very same prayers filed on 03.02.2017 i.e., with a delay of about four & a half decades cannot be entertained. It hardly needs to be stated that in the absence of a plausible explanation, the delay defeats equity and the writ courts do not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy.

B. As To Res Judicata:

The vehement contention of the respondents that the case of petitioners is liable to be res judicated has force in view of the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation as already mentioned above. The learned Co-ordinate Judge at para 7 of this judgment dated 14.07.1992 has observed as under:

"7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the light of the undisputed facts of this case, I am of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition i