VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of a common Order made by the Principal district Judge, Bangalore, on 22-12-1966, in L. A. Mis. Cases Nos. 271, 272 and 273 of 1961 and 94 of 1962. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) IT is relevant to mention that under the common Order made by the learned District Judge, he has also dealt with L. A. Mis. Case No. 149 of 1962, the relevant M. F. A, in regard to that being M. F. A. No. 10 of 1968. Since one of the respondents is reported to be dead, in the said appeal, it has been detached from the group of appeals for the purpose of disposal separately, after the legal representatives, if any, of the deceased respondent are brought on record. M. F. As. Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 232 of 1968 have been preferred by the Special land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore m. F. A. No. 261 of 1967 is an appeal for enhancement of compensation preferred by the claimant in L. A. Mis. Case No. 273/61. ( 3 ) WE may at this stage itself point out that in regard to M. F. A. No. 232 68, Sri A. J. Sadashiva, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 9 to 11 therein, submitted that he had nothing to say in regard to the enhancement of compensation. What, however, he submitted was that his clients had remained ex parte in the proceedings before the lower Court, and in that connection he had preferred an application for setting aside the order placing them ex parte and that the same is pending disposal in the said Court. He, theretore, submitted that in case his application were to be allowed, he would have to lead evidence in regard to apportionment only. He, therefore, had nothing more to say with regard to the question of apportionment at present. We, therefore, propose not to refer to this aspect of the case any further. ( 4 ) IT is also relevant to note that in regard to L. A. Mis. No. 272]61, there is a note made on 1-3-1968 by the learned District Judge, while disposing of LA. No. I, to the effect that in L. A. Mis. No. 272 61, a decree had not been drawn up. ( 4 ) IT is also relevant to note that in regard to L. A. Mis. No. 272]61, there is a note made on 1-3-1968 by the learned District Judge, while disposing of LA. No. I, to the effect that in L. A. Mis. No. 272 61, a decree had not been drawn up. He has also directed that the same should be drawn up as the parties had no objection to such a course. We have referred to this fact only to direct the attention of those concerned for the drawing up of the decree as early as possbile in accordance with the above directions of the learned District Judge. ( 5 ) THE following table would give the particulars regarding the numbers of the appeals, corresponding L. A. Mis. Cases before the lower Court, survey numbers and the extent of the lands acquired: