Petitioner being the land owner question the acquisition notification dated 25.11.2005 (i.e., Final Notification) produced at Annexure-‘J’ to the writ petition by which the petitioner’s land bearing Survey No.225, measuring 2 acres 2 guntas which is left out after acquiring 21 guntas of land in the same survey number situated at Banandur village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore District, is acquired by the respondents-authorities. He also seeks the cancellation of allotment of sites made in favour of respondents 3 and 4 carved out of the aforementioned property.

2. The records reveal that the preliminary notification under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the KIAD Act’ for short) was issued on 15.4.1997, proposing to acquire 2 acres 23 guntas of land in Survey No.225 belonging to the petitioner along with various other lands. Totally about 1884 acres of land was sought to be acquired under the said notification. The Final Notification came to be issued on 4.4.1998 in respect of 21 guntas of land in Survey No.225 and along with certain other properties and the same were handed over to the 2nd respondent-Karnataka industrial Areas Development Board for development. Thereafter, the compensation is paid to the petitioner which is received by him in respect of 21 guntas. Thus, at that time, the final notification was not issued in respect of remaining 2 acres 2 guntas of land in sy.No.225. Ultimately the Final Notification in respect of 2 acres 2 guntas was issued on 25.11.2005 alongwith certain other properties as per the notification produced at Annexure-‘J’ to the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the final notifications on certain dates are issued in respect of other lands which were sought to be acquired in the preliminary notification. On 20th of March 2006, possession is taken by respondent No.2-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) of the remaining portion of 2 acres 2 guntas of land in Survey No.225. The Board in turn allotted the property in question in two bits to respondents 3 and 4 in the month of March 2008. This writ petition is filed praying for quashing the final notification.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner argued that the petitioner is not issued with the notice before issuing the final notification; that the second final notification cannot be issued after lapse of 8 years from the date of issuing preliminary notification; that the preliminary notification dated 15.4.1997 is deemed to have been lapsed because of passage of time; that no notice is issued to the petitioner while taking possession of the property under Section 28 (6) of the KIAD Act; and that the vesting of the land in the State has taken place in the year 2005 (i.e., the year of issuing final notification) and hence, the principles of Section 11-A of the land Acquisition Act should be made applicable to the facts of this case also. Lastly, it is contended that the compensation is to be paid to the petitioner based on the market value as on today.

4. The writ petition is opposed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of respondents. They have filed statement of objections. The respondents’ advocates argued in support of the statement of objections by contending that the notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the final notification as well as at the time of taking possession of the property. They further submitted that there is no bar for issuing two or three final notifications based on single preliminary notification, particularly when the land sought to be acquired is a vast extent and the industrial area to be formed is comprising of various lands of various dimensions belonging to various lands of various dimensions belonging to various people.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Board has made available the records maintained by the Land Acquisition O