1. These four Writ Appeals are directed against the orders passed by learned single Judge, all dated 09.07.2012, in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants seeking direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider their representations (Annexure - D in all the Writ Petitions) whereby they sought solatium and interest on the market value of their lands, acquired under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short the 'KIAD Act'). The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the appellants are not entitled for the solatium and interest on the market value in view of determination of the amount of compensation by agreement as contemplated by S.29(2) of the KIAD Act.

2. The prayers made in all the writ petitions filed by the appellants are identical. The only prayer in the Writ Petitions reads thus:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the representation at Annexure - D dated 03.09.2011 and make payment of solatium and interest on the market value.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench (K. Sreedhar Rao and V. Suri Appa Rao JJ.) dated 06.12.2012 in Totesh Kotrappa Mudgal v. State of Karnataka & another (for short 'T. K. Mudgal') in W.A. No. 30951/2012 and submitted that the present appeals are squarely covered by this judgment (dated 06.12.2012) and hence, these appeals may also be disposed of in terms thereof. In support of this contention our attention was invited to the order dated 30.01.2013, passed by another Division Bench (H. Billappa and B. S. Indrakala JJ) in Bhulappa Yellappa Kembhavi v. State of Karnataka & Others in W.A. No. 30954/2012, which followed the judgment in T. K. Mudgal.

4. The facts and the questions considered in the above appeals (T. K. Mudgal and Bhulappa Y. Kembhavi) and the facts and the questions raised in the present appeal are similar. In spite thereof, there was a strong opposition to dispose of the present appeals in terms of the judgment in T. K. Mudgal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they have already advised their clients to carry the matter to the Supreme Court against the judgment in T. K. Mudgal. They further submitted that they would like to persuade us to take a differing view holding the judgment in T. K. Mudgal per incuriam, or to refer the question to a Larger Bench.

5. The lands involved in the present appeals and the lands involved in T. K. Mudgal and in Bhulappa Yellappa Kembhavi with the lands of several other owners, were subject - matter of the acquisition for extension of Hubli Aerodrome. The amount of compensation paid to the land owners / persons interested was in accordance with the agreement as contemplated by sub-section (2) of S.29 of the KIAD Act. The Notification under sub-section (1), the order under sub-section (3) and final notification under sub-section (4) of S.28 of the KIAD Act in all these cases were same. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed for disposal of these appeals also in terms of the judgment in T. K. Mudgal. For the sake of convenience we would state the facts in W.A. No. 30007/2013, that are relevant, for deciding the questions raised for our consideration in these appeals.

6. The background facts, sans unnecessary details, are that the petitioner's (in W.A. No. 30007/2013) property bearing plot No. 247 in block / sy.No.1B+368B measuring 2 guntas and 2_¼ annas situate at Unkal village, Hubli, has been acquired by the respondents for extension of Hubli Aerodrome. The amount of compensation for the land acquired came to be determined by agreement between the State Government and the petitioner as contemplated by sub-section (2) of S.29 of the KIAD Act. The petitioner was paid the amount of compensation in accordance with the agreement dated 05.04.2010. The petitioner accepted the compensation without any demur or protest. In