Judgment :- Petitioner being the land owner question the acquisition notification dated 25.11.2005 (i.e., Final Notification) produced at Annexure-‘J’ to the writ petition by which the petitioner’s land bearing Survey No.225, measuring 2 acres 2 guntas which is left out after acquiring 21 guntas of land in the same survey number situated at Banandur village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore District, is acquired by the respondents-authorities. He also seeks the cancellation of allotment of sites made in favour of respondents 3 and 4 carved out of the aforementioned property. 2. The records reveal that the preliminary notification under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the KIAD Act’ for short) was issued on 15.4.1997, proposing to acquire 2 acres 23 guntas of land in Survey No.225 belonging to the petitioner along with various other lands. Totally about 1884 acres of land was sought to be acquired under the said notification. The Final Notification came to be issued on 4.4.1998 in respect of 21 guntas of land in Survey No.225 and along with certain other properties and the same were handed over to the 2nd respondent-Karnataka industrial Areas Development Board for development. Thereafter, the compensation is paid to the petitioner which is received by him in respect of 21 guntas. Thus, at that time, the final notification was not issued in respect of remaining 2 acres 2 guntas of land in sy.No.225. Ultimately the Final Notification in respect of 2 acres 2 guntas was issued on 25.11.2005 alongwith certain other properties as per the notification produced at Annexure-‘J’ to the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the final notifications on certain dates are issued in respect of other lands which were sought to be acquired in the preliminary notification. On 20th of March 2006, possession is taken by respondent No.2-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) of the remaining portion of 2 acres 2 guntas of land in Survey No.225. The Board in turn allotted the property in question in two bits to respondents 3 and 4 in the month of March 2008. This writ petition is filed praying for quashing the final notification. 3. The Board in turn allotted the property in question in two bits to respondents 3 and 4 in the month of March 2008. This writ petition is filed praying for quashing the final notification. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner argued that the petitioner is not issued with the notice before issuing the final notification; that the second final notification cannot be issued after lapse of 8 years from the date of issuing preliminary notification; that the preliminary notification dated 15.4.1997 is deemed to have been lapsed because of passage of time; that no notice is issued to the petitioner while taking possession of the property under Section 28 (6) of the KIAD Act; and that the vesting of the land in the State has taken place in the year 2005 (i.e., the year of issuing final notification) and hence, the principles of Section 11-A of the land Acquisition Act should be made applicable to the facts of this case also. Lastly, it is contended that the compensation is to be paid to the petitioner based on the market value as on today. 4. The writ petition is opposed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of respondents. They have filed statement of objections. The respondents’ advocates argued in support of the statement of objections by contending that the notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the final notification as well as at the time of taking possession of the property. They further submitted that there is no bar for issuing two or three final notifications based on single preliminary notification, particularly when the land sought to be acquired is a vast extent and the industrial area to be formed is comprising of various lands of various dimensions belonging to various lands of various dimensions belonging to various people. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Board has made available the records maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Board for perusal of the Court. The contention of the petitioner that no notice was issued to him before passing the final notification cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the notice was issued to the petitioner after issuing preliminary notification in respect of the entire extent of 2 acres 23 guntas of land. The contention of the petitioner that no notice was issued to him before passing the final notification cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the notice was issued to the petitioner after issuing preliminary notification in respect of the entire extent of 2 acres 23 guntas of land. Annexures-‘R-1’, and ‘R-3’ produced by respondents 3 and 4 along with their statement of objections reveals that the notices are issued to the petitioner, making it clear that the entire extent of 2 acres 23 guntas is proposed to be acquired alongwith other properties. Thus, at the out set, the Board has made its intention clear that the entire 2 acres 23 guntas of land will be acquired. However, the objections are not filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it shall have to be held that the petitioner did not object for acquisition of his land to an extent of 2 acres 23 guntas. 6. It is no doubt true that the Final Notification in respect of 21 guntas only (along with other lands) was issued in the year 1998 at the first instance and award was passed only to the said extent of 21 guntas. Possession of 21 guntas was taken over initially. Subsequently also, final notifications are issued by the Board for acquiring the remaining portions of the lands found in the preliminary notification part-by-part. That is, the Board has chosen to issue final notifications as and when the industrial layout was completed in parts. According to the Board, the layout was not formed in the area of 2 acres 2 guntas in the year 1997-98 initially, but was formed in the year 2005 i.e., in further development; but on that ground, the acquisition notifications cannot be quashed. The State Government has always competence to issue as many final notifications as required taking note of the necessity and the completion of project part by part. It is also relevant to note that second final notification is issued not only in respect of 2 acres 2 guntas belonging to the petitioner on 22.11.2005, but also in respect of land totally measuring 219 acres 11 guntas, including the property of the petitioner. Under similar circumstances, this Court in the case of B.K. Nanjundaiah and Others – vs-the B.D.A., Bangalore and another (AIR 1988 Karnataka 227), has ruled that successive notifications at different stages will not cause any prejudice to the land owners. Under similar circumstances, this Court in the case of B.K. Nanjundaiah and Others – vs-the B.D.A., Bangalore and another (AIR 1988 Karnataka 227), has ruled that successive notifications at different stages will not cause any prejudice to the land owners. Since the scheme of the KIADB prepared in respect of formation of industrial layout is a comprehensive scheme, the acquisition of area covered by such scheme can take place at different stages from time to time depending on the developmental activities and its completion. In the very judgment, it has held that the land owners will be appropriately compensated in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, inasmuch as, they are not only entitled to market value, but also the solatium, additional market value, interest on solatium, interest of market value etc., These factor will compensate the damage, if any, sustained by the land owner. Moreover, time taken by the authorities to acquire the land and in taking possession would enure to the owner’s benefit of enjoying the usufructus of the land till he is dispossessed or till the award is passed. Thus, successive notifications at different stages will not cause any prejudice to the land owners like petitioner as they continue in the possession till passing of the award or taking actual possession. This Court in yet another judgment i.e., in the case of Smt. Sakamma –vs-State of Karnataka, in Writ Petition Nos. 32881-32882/1996 and connected matters, has ruled that successive final notifications based on single preliminary notification can be issued. While concluding so, this Court in the aforementioned judgment has observed thus: “From the aforesaid provisions it is clear that there shall be an industrial area and the Board shall function for promotion and assistance in the rapid and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in the industrial areas. It is also relevant to note that Section 27 of the Act provides that Chapter VII of the Act shall apply only to such areas from such date as has been notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. From the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the land situated within the industrial area or area declared to be an industrial area shall alone be acquired. The development of a planned industrial area and establishment, maintenance and development and management of industrial estate is a long drawn and continuous process. From the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the land situated within the industrial area or area declared to be an industrial area shall alone be acquired. The development of a planned industrial area and establishment, maintenance and development and management of industrial estate is a long drawn and continuous process. No time limit can be prescribed. It is also material to see that where large extent of lands are proposed for acquisition under the notification issued under sub-section(1) of section 28 of the Act, it may not be possible for the authorities to complete the acquisition at a single stroke in view of sub-sec(2) and sub-sec(3) of the Act which mandates the notice to the owner or the occupier and to all such persons known or believed to be interested therein and to provide them an opportunity of being heard in respect of their objections and to make orders in respect of such objections. It may not be out of place to mention that there may be some attempts to evade service of notice to protract the proceedings. In those circumstances, if the authorities postponed to make the declaration the development of the industry would suffer.” 7. From the above it is clear that the development of land in industrial areas, establishment, maintenance and development and management of industrial estate is a long drawn and continuous process. No time limit can be prescribed. Where large extent of land is proposed for acquisition under preliminary notification, it may not be possible for the authorities to complete the acquisition at a single stretch. The subsection (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act mandate the issuance of notice to the owner or the occupier and to all such persons interested therein and to provide them an opportunity of being heard. If certain of the land owners or occupiers evade service of notice, the development of the industrial estate cannot be stopped in its entirety. Under such circumstances, the Land Acquisition Officer may choose to hear the persons who have filed their statement of objections at the first instance and pass final notification in respect of those lands in the first instance. Thereafter, he may choose to pass final notifications in respect of other portions of the lands whose owners could be served and heard in future. Thereafter, he may choose to pass final notifications in respect of other portions of the lands whose owners could be served and heard in future. Moreover, to hear large number of land owners with variety of objections, the state Government may require longer period of time and it may take further time to pass orders in individual cases. Therefore, it would become necessary for the State Government to make different orders followed by different declarations. Since subsequent declarations would not in anyway cause prejudice to the owners, the same cannot be held to be impermissible. 8. For the very reason, it cannot be said that the preliminary notification dated 15.4.1997 based on which the final notification was not passed for about 7 to 8 years cannot be held to have been lapsed. As aforementioned, the Board was in continuous process of formation of industrial layout, inasmuch as, it had acquired more than about 1884 acres of land for formation of Bidadi Industrial Estate. Since the scheme is a comprehensive and integrated scheme, the same came to be executed continuously, uninterruptedly completely by issuing final notifications, as and when the work progressed stage by stage. 9. The records also reveal that the notice was issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act to the petitioner. The copy of such notice is produced by the petitioner himself at Annexure-‘K’ along with the writ petition. Thus, it cannot be said that no notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act. Annexure-‘R-6’ dated 23.2.2007 is the document which shows that the State Government has taken possession of the property and has handed over the same to the Board. Thereafter, the Board in turn allotted the property in question to respondents 3 and 4 in the month of March 2008. The respondents 3 and 4 have already put up industrial sheds by investing huge money as is clear from the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant which is produced along with their statement of objections. The photographs of the sheds are also produced along with the writ petition, which reveal that substantial work is already done by respondents 3 and 4 in respect of setting up of industrial sheds. 10. The photographs of the sheds are also produced along with the writ petition, which reveal that substantial work is already done by respondents 3 and 4 in respect of setting up of industrial sheds. 10. The contention of the petitioner that the compensation is to be paid in respect of the petition property based on the market value as on this day also cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the petitioner will be compensated in accordance with law. The Land Acquisition Act clearly reveals the procedure to be adopted for payment of compensation. The petitioner is entitled to compensation in accordance with the said enactment. Merely because the final notification is issued belatedly and possession is taken thereafter, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the same. As aforementioned, if the final notification is issued later, the petitioner is the beneficiary, inasmuch as, he continued in possession of the property and made use of the usufructus of the property till the date of final notification. 11. The principles of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the award is not passed belatedly in this matter after final notification. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable only if the award is passed after two years from the date of final notification. Therefore, the same principle cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 12. One of the most important factor in the matter is that the petitioner has made representation as per Annexure-‘H’ to the writ petition on 23.12.1999 praying for either releasing the land to an extent of 2 acres 2 guntas in his favour or in the alternative to pay compensation immediately in respect of the said extent of land. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner himself has prayed for compensation in respect of area of 2 acres 2 guntas for which final notification was not issued at that point of time. This itself goes to show that the petitioner had not only the notice of the acquisition proceedings, but also had prayed for compensation in respect of the entire extent of the land including the area of 2 acres 2 guntas. This itself goes to show that the petitioner had not only the notice of the acquisition proceedings, but also had prayed for compensation in respect of the entire extent of the land including the area of 2 acres 2 guntas. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.t. Krishnamoorthy –vs-State of Karnataka (ILR 1991 Kar 1183) after relying upon the judgment rendered by another Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.781/1989 (disposed of on 6th November 1989) has ruled that where a person has asked for compensation, he cannot maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this matter also, since the petitioner has claimed compensation in the year 1999 to the entire extent of 2 acres 23 guntas including the petition property, he cannot be permitted to file the writ petition questioning the acquisition notifications, that too, after lapse of about three years from the date of final notification. As aforementioned, the said representation vide Annexure-‘H’ dated 23.12.1999 clearly reveals that the petitioner was in know of things. Therefore, he should have filed the writ petition at the earliest. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also, apart from the fact that the same is not maintainable in view of his representation vide Annexure-‘H’. Looking from any angle, this court does not find any ground to quash the impugned acquisition notification. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.