1. The appellants are all land owners who have lost their lands or in the process of losing and in fact they are fighting a losing battle to save their lands for livelihood or sustenance due to the compulsory take over of this land by the State Government by issue of notifications u/s 3 (1), (3) and 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Appellants/land owners’ effort to save their lands from the sweep of acquisition by the State Government by filing writ petitions before this Court having failed as the learned Single Judge of this Court opined that there is no merit in the contentions urged in support of the writ petitioners, challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Act and more so, the number of writ petitioners before the Court who had questioned the validity of the acquisition proceedings by the State Government being not even 1/10th of the land holders whose lands had been notified for acquisition and more so when more than 9/10th of the land losers had in fact given their consent for acquisition or to be precise if they have not chosen to challenge the legality of acquisition proceedings and if the Court should interfere with the acquisition proceedings by the State Government even at the instance of such small number of people, it would only result in bringing to a halt the entire developmental activities in the industrial area and that would not be in the interest of anyone and therefore purporting to follow the dictum as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (1998 (6) SCC 1) to the effect that the individual right of the land owner must yield in favour of he larger public purposes declined to interfere in the acquisition proceedings and has consequently dismissed the writ petition.

3. Undaunted by the failure before the learned Single Judge of this Court land losing owners of the subject lands who are the writ petitioners are in appeal u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act and these appeals having been admitted on 10.08.2009 and thereafter have all been set down for hearing, appeals having been heard at considerable length over the past more than two weeks paving way for this judgment.

4. Brief facts leading to the above appeals are that the State of Karnataka issued notifications u/ss. 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Act; all three notifications of the even date 09.11.2006 and also published in the Karnataka Gazette of he even date. While the Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act indicated that the subject lands mentioned in the Schedule measuring a total extent of 1034 acres spread over several survey numbers of villages of Koppal. Basapur and Halawarthi of Koppal Taluk and District, and in the ownership of as many as 359 land holders are being declared as industrial areas in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. It was also indicated in the very Notification that, out of this total extent of 1034 acres of land, an extent of 915 acres 34 guntas of land comprised in different survey numbers of Koppal, Basapur and Halawarthi villages were required for the purpose of a Company by name M/s AAREESS Iron and Steel Limited and an extent of 118 acres 6 guntas of land comprised in different survey numbers of Halawarthi village was required to M/s. MSPL Limited: both companies are incorporated under the Indian Companies Act.

5. On a reading of these Notifications, it is not clear as to why the name of these Companies figured in the notification and also as to what was the reason for apportioning an extent of 915 acres 34 guntas and 118 acres 6 guntas of land was made in favour of two companies out of a total extent from out of lands sought to be declared as industrial area.

6. It is the claim of the State Government that, simultaneously was issued a Notification under Section 1(3) of the Act in respect of a total extent of 992 acres 8 guntas of land. Though appellants/petitioners had contended th