( 1 ) SINCE the questions involved in these petitions are identical, all these petitions are taken up and heard together and disposd of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners, in these petitions, are the owners of various items of lands, which are sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of a Truck Terminal at a place known as Kyathasandra on the National Highway near Tumkur Town.

( 3 ) IN these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 26th of October, 1996 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 30th of October, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to Writ Petitions Nos. 10603 and 10604/97, issued under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the notification dated 1st of February, 1997 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20th of February, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D to Writ Petitions Nos. 10603 and 10604/1997, issued under Section 19 (1) of the Act.

( 4 ) A few facts, which are not in dispute and which may be relevant for the disposal of these writ petitions, may be set out as hereunder : (A) In the impugned notifications, the lands in all measuring 23 acres 13 guntas situated at Kyathasandra, belonging to the petitioners and a few others, are sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of Truck Terminal. It is not in dispute that the lands in question are located very close to the National Highway. Since the second respondent desired that the lands are required for the purpose of erection of a Truck Terminal, the second respondent drew up a detailed scheme for the development of the lands in question for the said purpose, as provided for under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. Thereafter, a notification Annexure-A dated 26th of October, 1996, as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act came to be issued. Pursuant to the said notification, the persons, who are interested in the lands, were called upon to file their objections. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners and others filed their objections and the said objections were considered by the Commissioner of the second respondent. He heard the petitioners and their counsel on several dates and thereafter, passed a final order on 10th of January, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-R1 along with the Statement of Objections filed by the second respondent. Subsequently, the report submitted by the Commissioner of the second respondent was considered by the second respondent-Authority in its meeting held on 10th of January, 1997 itself, i. e. , the date on which the report was submitted by the Commissioner. The second respondent, after considering the report of the Commissioner, approved the report of the Commissioner and submitted the scheme to the Government for its sanction as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act. The Government, by means of the notification Annexure-D, declared that the lands in question are required for the public purpose. As stated earlier, the said notifications have been called in question in these petitions. (b) The second respondent has filed its common Statement of Objections in all these petitions resisting the challenge made to the impugned notifications. The third respondent filed its Statement of Objections in Writ Petitions Nos. 10603 and 10604/97 and at the hearing of the petitions, Sri Mahesh, learned Government Advocate, submitted that the Statement of Objections filed in the said Writ Petitions may be treated as common Statement of Objections in all these petitions.

( 5 ) I have heard Sri T. S. Ramachandra, Sri N. Kumar and Sri Jayanth M. Pattanashetti, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri A. S. Mahesh, learned Government Advocate, and Sri P. S. Manjunath, learned Counsel, for the respondents.

( 6 ) SRI T. S. Ramachandra appearing along with other learned Coun