RAM MOHAN REDDY, J

1. Petitioners either owners or tenants in possession of certain immovable properties located adjacent to the road from Jagat Circle to Humnabad Base in Gulbarga, aggrieved by the Notification dt.21.03.2010 Annexure-A issued under Section 17 R/w Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the ‘Act’, proposing to acquire their properties, to with, for widening the road, on behalf of the 6th Respondent-Gulbarga City Municipal Corporation, for short ‘City Corporation’, by the State, in exercise of eminent domain power, have presented these petitions.

2. It is the assertion of the petitioners that in the year 2001 respondents made an attempt to acquire their properties by issuing a Notification under the Highway Act for formation of Bidar-Srirangapatna Highway, which when called in question in W.P.29360-386/2001 were disposed of by order dt. 9.10.2001 directing the petitioners to file their objections which when done, though the respondents withdrew the Notification, nevertheless by order dt. 18.12.2003 held that the petitioners had encroached upon the road. That order when called in question in a batch of writ petitions, this Court by order dt. 17.4.2004 allowed the petitions, observing that the ‘City Corporation’ had failed to place cogent and satisfactory material to establish that the road width of Bhande bazaar and Kirana Bazaar was 50 ft. That order when carried in W.A.3081/2004 was dismissed by order dt.22.8.2008, however permitting the ‘City Corporation’ to proceed in the matter subject to compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short ‘KMC Act’. The order of the Division Bench, it is said is final and binding as between the parties since not challenged. The ‘City Corporation’ having made efforts to demolish the properties of some of the petitioners, approached this Court in anther batch of writ petitions, whence by order dt. 20.10.2008 the writ petitions were allowed by directing the petitioners to file their title deeds and other documents to establish that there was no encroachment on their part which the ‘City Corporation’ was in turn directed to adjudicate upon and proceed under Sections 270, 271 or 288 of the ‘KMC Act’. The ‘City Corporation’ instead of complying with the said order, it is alleged, took coercive measures by issuing notices under Sections 343, 352, 365, 372 and 461 of the ‘KMC Act’, insisting upon traders to obtain trade licences to carry on business in premises located from Thimmapuri circle to Jagat circle. It is further alleged that the Authorities of ‘City Corporation’ hand in glove with the Police forced the shop keepers to close down their business for 48 hours, over which complaints when made to the Human Rights Commission, Bangalore, cognizance was taken and though enquiry is conducted is said to be pending. In addition, complaints when addressed to the Governor was responded to by communication to the Prl.Secretary, Urban Development Department directing the ‘City Corporation’ to issue trade licences without resorting to coercive measures.

3. It is asserted that at the instance of the ‘City Corporation’, the 2nd Respondent-State issued the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 25.8.2009 Annexure-G proposing to acquire the petitioners’ properties, to which objections were filed under Section 5(A) of the ‘Act’ contending that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the ‘Act’ and was contrary to the reported opinions of the Apex Court in NARENDRAJEET SINGH vs. STATE OF U.P. (AIR 1973 SC 552), which it is alleged was not considered nor an enquiry held as contemplated by Section 5(A) of the Act. It is the further allegation of the petitioners that the 2nd Respondent-State acting on the request of the ‘City Corporation’ without continuing the proceedings pursuant to the Notification dt.25.8.2009 Annexure-G under Section 4(1) of the Act, the State issued the composite Notification impugned invokin