P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.

These intra Court appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge dated 19.2.2015 in writ petition Nos. 112923 & 112924-938 of 2014 c/w 81936-952 of 2013 & 111551 of 2014 (LA-KIADB), rejecting the said writ petitions.

2. Heard Sri H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for Sri S.R. Hegde, learned Counsel for the appellants.

3. Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned common order passed by the learned single Judge is not sustainable in law because admittedly, the respondent - KIADB has not paid the value of the land falling under the category of 'Pot Kharab'. He submitted that KIADB had acquired lands belonging to 16 appellants herein as per Schedule - 'A' appended to the writ petitions. The compensation is paid by calculating the area of land acquired in all cases excluding the Pot Kharab area. He submitted that Pot Kharab is described under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 ('Rules' for short) "A" - Pot Kharab belongs to the owner of the agricultural land and "B" - Pot Kharab belongs to the Government. According to him, it is not in dispute that the respondent - KIADB has made payment excluding the area of "A" Pot Kharab land.

4. In order to explain the case of the appellants explicitly, learned Senior Counsel adverted to additional documents sought to be produced by the respondent - KIADB along with an application dated 20.4.2016 under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. The respondent-KIADB has filed copies of an indemnity bond, an agreement, an affidavit, a voucher for payment of compensation under Section 29(2) of KIADB Act, 1996 and a possession letter in respect of all appellants herein. To demonstrate in detail, the learned Senior Counsel took us through the documents in respect of the first appellant namely, Smt. Shanta Parappa Venkatapur and submitted that case of remaining appellants are identical. He pointed out from the agreement that the total area mentioned therein is 9 acres 23 guntas minus 0-10 P.K. (Pot Kharab). He argued that in the agreement, indemnity bond, voucher for payment and the possession letter the area of land is mentioned as 9 acres 13 guntas. He further argued that, it is clear from these documents that the KIADB had acquired only 9 acre 13 guntas excluding the Pot Kharab of 10 guntas. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for compensation in respect of the Pot Kharab area of their respective lands.

5. In support of his case, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following unreported judgments:

(i) Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos. 50107 & 50128-154 of 2013 in the case of Sidramappa Shivappa Birakabbi and others Vs. Government of Karnataka and others; and

(ii) Judgment of learned single Judge, in W.P. No. 46651 of 2013 in the case of T.V. Shivashankar v. The State of Karnataka and another and urged that these appeals presented by the poor peasants be allowed and respondent - KIADB be directed to acquire the 'A' Pot Kharab land in each case and pay compensation.

6. We have carefully considered the documents in the case of first appellant Smt. Shanta Parappa Venkatapur relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for appellants to explain his case and the judgments cited by him.

7. It is not in dispute that the acquisition of lands in all these cases are by agreement between the parties. The agreement dated 15.6.2012 between the first appellant and the KIADB clearly shows that as per the agreement, the quantified amount is Rs. 2,42,45,000/- which includes compensation towards cost of acquired land, building and other appurtenant items. Further, in the affidavit dated 16.5.2012, the total area of land mentioned is 9 acre 23 guntas which includes the Pot Kharab area. The voucher for payment is for the sum of Rs. 2,42,45,000/-. The voucher is described as Form 'D' under Section 29(2) of KIADB Act, 1966. The voucher indicates that the payment is in full sett