VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of learned Counsel, these appeals were treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them. ( 2 ) THESE are appeals from the common order of Bhimiah, J. , dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 5404 and 5405 of 1975. The petitioners therein have presented these appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their respective positions In the writ petitions. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5404 of 1975, is the owner of 1 acre 3 guntas of dry land in survey No. 5/7 of Hiriyur village; while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5405 of 1975, is the owner of 13 guntas of dry land in Survey No. 5/8. Those lands were proposed for acquisition by notification under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of House Sites act, 1972 o be referred to as 'the Act', published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary dated april 23, 1975. The petitioners filed their objections to the proposed acquisition before the assistant Commissioner (respondent-2) who, after receiving the remarks of the Block development Officer on such objections and after a local inspection of those lands, overruled the objections and sent his (the Assistant Commissioner's) report to the Deputy Commissioner for further action. Accepting that report, the Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 10-9-1977, directed issue of the final notification under Section 3 (4) of the Act. ( 4 ) THE petitioners had impugned the validity of those acquisition proceedings in the writ petitions. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ petitions. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, Shri Raghavendrachar, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, contended that the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, had overlooked that the assistant Commissioner had not heard the petitioners before sending the report to the Deputy commissioner and that the Deputy Commissioner had made the order under Section 3 (3) of the act read with Rule 9 made there- under, mechanically and without application of his mind. ( 6 ) WE perused the records of the acquisition proceedings produced by Shri T. S. Mohammed Ali learned High Court Government Pleader. ( 6 ) WE perused the records of the acquisition proceedings produced by Shri T. S. Mohammed Ali learned High Court Government Pleader. From the order sheet of the enquiry proceedings of the assistant Commissioner, it becomes obvious that he (the Assistant Commissioner) had not heard the petitioners or their Counsel before sending his report to the Deputy Commissioner. In making the report, he had merely relied upon the remarks received from the Block Development officer and the information he gathered at the local inspection held without notices to the petitioners. By a perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner purported to have been made under Section 3 (3) of the Act, we found it to be in a cyclostyled form in which some words were struck of. From a perusal of that order, it is apparent that the Deputy Commissioner made his order mechanically and without application of his mind. Thus, in our view, the acquisition proceedings from the stage of the local inspection by the Assistant Commissioner, are liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the result, we allow these appeals partly, reverse the common order of the learned single judge, allow the writ petitions, quash the impugned acquisition proceedings from and including the stage of the local inspection. However, we make it clear that the notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act remains undisturbed and that the Assistant Commissioner may now hear the petitioners or their learned Counsel, hold a local inspection after notices to them and send a report to the Deputy Commissioner, and that, thereafter, it would be open to the Deputy commissioner to proceed according to law. ( 8 ) IN these appeals, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.