JUDGMENT : In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the notifications issued under Sections 3 (1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and as also preliminary notification dated 23-9-2005 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 followed by the publication of final declaration. 1. 2. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press the challenge made to the notifications issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Act, as the very land is the subject-matter of acquisition by the BDA as per the preliminary and final notifications issued vide Annexure-E and G and that the challenge is confined only to the acquisition made by the BDA. It is also submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that insofar as Sy. No. 54 of Thirumenahalli Village of Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk is concerned, the KIADB has not issued any final declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act and therefore it is not necessary to challenge the notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act. The submission made is placed on record and in the light of this submission challenge made to the acquisition for the benefit of the KIADB in respect of Sy. No. 54 is rejected as premature. 3. As regards the challenge made to the preliminary and final notifications acquiring the land for the purpose of BDA for formation of the peripheral ring road, learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that in the preliminary notification published vide Annexure-E the land of the petitioners bearing Sy. No. 54 was proposed to be acquired to an extent of 32 guntas. The said notification was published on 27-9-2005 in the Official Gazette. However, while issuing the final declaration vide Annexure-G published in the Official Gazette on 3-7-2007 an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta comprised in Sy. No. 54 out of 1 acre 10 guntas has been acquired. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that having issued the preliminary notification to acquire 32 guntas of land, it was not open for the respondents to issue final declaration in respect of larger extent of land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta. 4. No. 54 out of 1 acre 10 guntas has been acquired. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that having issued the preliminary notification to acquire 32 guntas of land, it was not open for the respondents to issue final declaration in respect of larger extent of land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent – BDA taking me through the statement of objections points out that another preliminary notification has been issued on 15-11-2006 proposing to acquire additional extent of lands including an extent of 9 guntas in Sy. No. 54 of Thirumenahalli belonging to the petitioners and therefore no exception can be taken for the final notification issued which acquires both 32 guntas and 9 guntas as proposed in the two preliminary notification published earlier to the final declaration. This submission answers the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 5. It is well-established that any number of preliminary notifications can be issued. In the instant case, two preliminary notification are issued, one in respect of 32 guntas another in respect of the additional extent of 9 guntas. Including the extent mentioned in both the notifications, a single final declaration is issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act. The total extent of land acquired is 1 acre 1 gunta. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the notification acquiring the land. The authorities are required to pass award in respect of 1 acre 1 gunta of land that is acquired. 6. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms stated above declaring interference with the acquisition proceedings.