1. Although the matter is listed for hearing on I.A., it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates.

2. The petitioners have called into question the final notification, dated 31.7.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD’ Act for short) insofar as they pertain to the petitioners’ lands. The lands in question along with the other lands totally measuring 1057 acres are being compulsorily acquired for the purpose of industrial development.

3. Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for Sri Girish Baladare for the petitioners submits that many of the petitioners are not even put on individual notices on the issuance of the preliminary notification. That is why and how some of the petitioners are denied of the opportunity to file the objections. Some of the petitioners, who have filed the objections, are not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. Without considering their objections and hearing them, the order under Section 28(3) and consequently the notification under Section 28(4) are issued. He brings to my notice that this Court, by its order, dated 13.2.2012 (Annexure-R) in Writ Petition Nos.37251-276/2011 has already quashed the final notification insofar as it pertains to the land-owners in Writ Petition Nos.37251-276/2011.

4. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State Government brings to my notice the averments contained in paragraph No.9 of the memorandum of the writ petition. It reads as follows:-

“9. The petitioners filed objections to the proposed acquisition. A few of the objections filed by the petitioner are produced herewith and marked Annexure-K. The petitioners were however not given any personal hearing in that matter, and without hearing all the petitioners and considered the objections filed by the some of the petitioners the notices are issued under the Act for acquisition.”

Thus, as the petitioners themselves have admitted that they have received the notice and filed objections, their only surviving grievance could be that they are not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter.

5. Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) in WP Nos.24322-24340/2012 C/W 23337-23357/2012, 29340-29391/2012 and 23332-23336/2012 submits that the issues raised in these petitions are fairly covered by this Court’s order, dated 13.2.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.37251-276/2011. He submits that the interested persons are notified of the acquisition proceedings and are given the opportunity to file their objections and that they were heard on 7.5.2007 and 8.5.2007. As the acquisition proceedings do not suffer from any infirmity, he prays for the dismissal of these petitions.

6. Sri Ashok N. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No.4299/2012 and 6903-6906/2012 and 6907-6911/2012 submits that the objections filed by the petitioners are considered. Some of the land-owners have already given their consent to the acquisition of the lands. They only want higher compensation.

7. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Sadasiva Reddy denies that any of the petitioners has given the consent to the acquisition of the lands. He submits that the records reveal that the acquisition of the lands in question is for the establishment of Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T.). As the I.I.T. has not evinced any interest and as it has not deposited the amounts towards the compensation, the very purpose of acquisition has spent itself. In this regard, he read out the extract of the proceedings of the meeting of KIADB held on 1.2.2008.

EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

ADDL.SUB.NO.5

File No.1862

285th Meeting dated 1.2.2008

“LANGUAGE”

8. On the petitioner’s argument that the purpose for which the acquisition proceedings are initiated has spent itself out,