JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. There is no representation for first and third respondents inspite of service of notice. The second respondent has been served by publishing a notice in the newspaper. A memo has been filed in respect of the substituted service.

2. Learned Senior Counsel has argued before this Court that the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge setting aside the acquisition proceedings deserves to be set aside, in the light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1415 of 2018 (LA- BDA) in the case of (Sri.L.Ramareddy Vs. The State of Karnataka). Paragraph Nos.28 and 44 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

28. Next, it is necessary to discuss Smt. K.M.Chikkathayamma and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others [ILR 2016 KAR 1603], which is a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. (a) One of the points for determination in the said case was: Whether the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 or the LA Act, 2013, should be applied to acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the KUDA Act and the BDA Act, if the proceedings are not completed as