By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru: BDA gets title of the property only through Final Notification .Land owners do not need go to any court order to enforce final notification. Sri Krishna Murthy AEE Housing project is facing PCRNo 12777/2014 and Lokayukta case in 3026/2014. Let BDA stop construction in S.No 101/2BValgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka & wait final outcome in OS NO 26334/2014 as status quo order was issued for both and vacated for both and it is not clearMeans both were asked to maintain status quo and now both are free not to maintain status quo which is technically impossible to implement and case is admitted in OS NO 26334/2014 and Lis is pending . Kengeri police should restrict Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project and stop construction if any carried out by Gowri construction. Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project is in hurry and repeating same blunder what housing division has committed in other similar cases and Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project cares too hoots to the order ofhonourable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY in WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA). Somehow he want to finish off the 200 core project and vanish from the place without caring rule of law and go back to his parent PWD department leaving BDA in deep financial mess . Land acquisition officer has to defend in the court but here he himself has taken the responsibility of land acquisition officer and defending the case illegally. In a similar case by BDA housing department and same Gowri construction contractor continued the work and completed the work during the pendency of the case but the case went against the BDA. BDA is not learning any lessen even though in similar case in the high court of Karnataka at Bangalore in its order dated 14 th day of February 2014 bythe honorable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDYin WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA) had allowed WP. It is also to be seen that the BDA has plunged ahead with the project and erected building even during the pendency of this petition - unconscious of its folly or may be even brash indifference as to the consequences if any. It is not in doubt that the petitions, however, would succeed in the light of the above infirmity and are accordingly allowed. The BDA was directed to put the petitioners in possession of lands of similar nature and extent as were the subject matter of acquisition. This case should open the eyes of BDA. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the lands of the petitioners do not form the subject matter of the second final notification dated 16.9.1997 or the third final notification dated 7.10.1999. The lands of the petitioners have evidently not been acquired by the BDA or Government. In this view of the matter, the action of the BDA in attempting to put up construction illegally in the lands of the petitioners or their earlier attempts to auction the property, are illegal and without the authority of law. The Mahazar, if any, sought to be drawn , is by a Revenue Inspector and obviously, as has been the routine, some strange signatures said to be those of villagers, without any particulars, would be vaguely found in any such Mahazar prepared in the office of the BDA, to falsely claim that BDA has taken possession. Moreover, when the lands of the petitioners do not form the subject matter of any final notification legally or factually, the question of the BDA passing any award or claiming that they have taken possession of the said lands, does not arise.