Judgment :- Subhash B. Adi, J. In this Writ Petition, petitioners have questioned the Notification dated 21.5.1998 produced at Annexure- `F1' issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and Notification dated 9.10.2006 produced at Annexure 'K' issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, and for restraining respondents No.5 and 6 from setting up of ash pond in the petitioners land and further to conduct the study on the impact of dumping ash and for injunction restraining respondents No.1, 2 to 4 from taking possession. 2. Respondent No.1- State initiated acquisition proceedings for the benefit of respondent No.3 through respondents No.2 and 4. Respondent No.3 has proposed to establish a Coal Thermal Power Project in State of Karnataka and in this regard the State has sought to acquire lands for the said purpose. In this Writ Petition, the lands sought to be acquired is for formation of ash pond. 3. Though initially under the preliminary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the KIDB Act, land measuring 509 acres and 76 cents was proposed, however, by the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, the acquisition was confined only to the extent of 132 acres 36 cents. 4. The Writ Petition was opposed by respondent No.3 by filing statement of objection. Respondent No.3 contended that, it is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. Central Government in XI Five Year Plan considered commissioning of power project to achieve energy. 3rd respondent Company will supply power at a very competent tariff which would help the consumers in the State and other places and will assured good quality of power at low cost. The proposal of the Thermal Power Project was considered by the Central Government. The proposed project involves establishing, operating and maintaining of 1015 MW Thermal Power Project at Yellur, Santhur, Thenka villages of Udupi District. It involves investment of an amount of Rs.35,000/- crores. The establishment of the project is done with utmost care for the environment and it is a environment friendly project. 5. On detailed consideration, Central Government and State Government have accorded approval of the project. It involves investment of an amount of Rs.35,000/- crores. The establishment of the project is done with utmost care for the environment and it is a environment friendly project. 5. On detailed consideration, Central Government and State Government have accorded approval of the project. In this regard, respondent No.3 approached various statutory authorities for necessary permissions and sanctions, and authorities have sanctioned the permission, such as, Environment, clearance from Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, State Pollution Control Board etc. 6. State Government clearance dated 27.8.2001 was challenged before this Court and this Court in a judgment which is reported in ILR 2002 Kar. 1715 directed the State Government to reconsider the matter meaningfully. State Government on reconsideration of the entire matter has granted permission on 16.2.2004. 7. It is further stated that, as regards to the compensation, Land Price Advisory Committee has been constituted by the State Government to fix the price of the land. The said committee consists of land owners, representatives from the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, the District Administration namely the Deputy Commissioner, Tahasildar and the Revenue Officer and the representative of the 3rd respondent. The said Committee in its meeting held on 31.1.2007 has fixed the land value at Rs.6 lakhs per acre. It is also stated that, company has invested 538 crores on the project and 187 crores have been spent on various other activities till March 2007 and in all Company had spent Rs.725 crores till then. It is also stated that, earlier lands were earmarked for power project for the N.T.P. C. for production of 2420 MW thermal power plant. The said plant could not come up due to disintegration of the earlier Soviet, Russia-USSR, half of the land was given to the 1000 MW Mangalore Power Project (Cogentrix) and balance half of the Northern side of Konkan Railway was given to the 3' respondent, the Nagarjuna Power Project. It is also stated that, Company has entered into several financial agreements and commitments involving crores of rupees. It has approached 14 Indian Public Sector Banks for sanction of Rs.3474 crores. about 500 persons are working at the site and further a day's delay is causing loss of crores of rupees. 8. It is also stated that, Company has entered into several financial agreements and commitments involving crores of rupees. It has approached 14 Indian Public Sector Banks for sanction of Rs.3474 crores. about 500 persons are working at the site and further a day's delay is causing loss of crores of rupees. 8. It is also contended that, Notifications in question were challenged by some of the land owners in W.P.No.15678/2006, and by order dated 29.11.2000, the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed. The said order was also challenged in Writ Appeal No.110/ 2007 and Division Bench of this Court by order dated 5.9.2007 dismissed the appeal upholding the validity of the Notification. It is further stated that, the contentions raised in this Writ Petition are identical to the contentions raised in the said Writ Petition. 9. As regards to the merits of the case, it is also stated that, notices were issued to the concerned persons and after considering the objections, final notification has been issued and the Company has taken possession. 10. Respondents No.2 and 4 have filed objections interalia alleging that, 2nd petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition, as his name is not found in the revenue records for the relevant year. Out of 4 acres 89 cents, in respect of 3 acres 7 cents, Muttakka Shedthi Khatedar of the land has received the compensation and only to the extent of 1 acre 72 cents, the compensation is not paid. In respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 126/2, the notified Khatedar has received the compensation in respect of land measuring 7 acres 23 guntas, as regards to Sy.No.36/7 though preliminary notification was for acquisition of 3 acres 84 cents, however, in the final notification, it was confined to only 1 acre 75 guntas. The notified Khatedar is Muttakka Sedthi, Petitioner No.2 is the GPA holder, but the Muttakka Shedthi being one of the Khatedar, has accepted the compensation. In view of the same, the claim of the 2nd petitioner is not maintainable. Insofar as 3rd petitioner is concerned, all the lands are not notified in the final notification, except land in Sy.No.22/1 to the extent of 1 acre 56 cents, which also includes 4th petitioner's land. In view of the same, the claim of the 2nd petitioner is not maintainable. Insofar as 3rd petitioner is concerned, all the lands are not notified in the final notification, except land in Sy.No.22/1 to the extent of 1 acre 56 cents, which also includes 4th petitioner's land. 5th petitioner is concerned, his land is not notified for acquisition and 6th petitioner is not a Khatedar and there is no relationship between 6th petitioner with the notified Khatedar. Her name is also not shown in the RTC as on the date of preliminary notification. Insofar as 7th petitioner is concerned. only 48 cents of land in Sy.No.23/4 and 38 cents in Sy.No.28/15 is acquired. 11. According to the respondents No.2 and 4, the total extent of lands belongs to the petitioners is 20 acres 14 guntas and out of 20 acres 14 guntas, respondents No.2 and 4 have paid the compensation in respect of 10 acres 23 guntas and only in respect of 9 acres 84 cents, the compensation is to be paid. It is also stated that, out of 132 acres 36 guntas, compensation has been paid in respect of 105 acres. 12. It is also submitted that, the notices were served on the Khatedars whose name appear in the revenue records and after considering the objection, the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued. 1st petitioner was served with notice dated % 16.11.1998. However, 1st petitioner had taken the benefit of the objections filed by 3rd petitioner. 2nd petitioner has no locus standi, as his name is not found in the revenue records. 3rd petitioner was issued with notice and date was fixed for personal hearing on 30.1.1999. On the said date, 3rd petitioner did not appear. 4th petitioner has not chosen to file objections to the acquisition proceedings, as such there is no reason to hear the 4th petitioner. Lands of 5th petitioner have not been acquired, so question of hearing does not arise. 6th petitioner is concerned, there is no record to show that, he is notified as Khatedar. 7th petitioner is concerned, notice was served on him on 16.11.1998 and his son appeared before the authority and after considering the objections, report was submitted. Lands of 5th petitioner have not been acquired, so question of hearing does not arise. 6th petitioner is concerned, there is no record to show that, he is notified as Khatedar. 7th petitioner is concerned, notice was served on him on 16.11.1998 and his son appeared before the authority and after considering the objections, report was submitted. After the issue of notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, further notification under Section 28(5) is also issued and by virtue of the said notification land stood vested in the State and the petitioners have no legal right to challenge the same. It is also stated that, in similar circumstances, Writ Petition filed by owners of other lands have been dismissed by this Court. 13. Respondent No.5- Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and respondent No.6- Ministry of Environment, Forest, Government of India also contested the matter. Respondent No.5 has filed separate objections supporting the acquisition proceedings. 14. Heard learned senior counsel Sri Nagananda for petitioner. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil for respondent No.3. Sri Sabarad for respondents No.2 and 4. Sri L.Govindraj for respondent No.5 and Aravind Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.6 and Sri S.P.Kulkami, learned counsel for respondent No.7 who was impleaded by order dated 17.12.2007. 15. Sri Nagananda, learned senior counsel submitted that, petitioners are the owners of the scheduled lands. Section 28(2) of the Act requires, notice to be issued to the landowners and interested persons. Without issuing the notice and without hearing the land owners, as required under Section 28(3) of the Act, final notification under Section 28(4) has been issued. He further submitted that, lands are sought to be acquired for formation of ash pond. Formation of ash pond would destroy the environment and ecology, as these lands are agricultural lands and Santhur Village has got two lakes and rivers and there is abandant flora and fuana. Flying ash will affect the existing environment and will have a greater impact on the ecology. Respondent No.3 Company has not obtained necessary permissions from the ministry of environment and forest. He relied onAnnexure- `P' the notification dated 14.9.1999 issued by respondent No.6 interalia stating that, under the notification, 6th respondent has specified the period for complete utilization of fly ash. 16. Respondent No.3 Company has not obtained necessary permissions from the ministry of environment and forest. He relied onAnnexure- `P' the notification dated 14.9.1999 issued by respondent No.6 interalia stating that, under the notification, 6th respondent has specified the period for complete utilization of fly ash. 16. Since 9 years is period fixed for complete utilization for the fly ash, and the said time having been expired, the purpose of establishing the ash pond does not survive. He also submitted that, before commissioning the Thermal Power Plant, there is no study of impact assessment on environment. He further submitted that, lands being agricultural lands and surrounded by water pond, lakes, rivers. establishment of fly ash would not only destroy the nature, but will have a greater impact on the environment and such an attempt would also affect on the utility of the lands for agricultural purpose. He further submitted that, the 3rd respondent has not obtained the clearance from the department of Environment and Forest, Government of India. 17. In support of his contention of violation of provisions of Section 28 of the Act is concerned, he relied on the RTC produced at Annexures- `A' to `G' and submitted that, though the petitioners names appeared in the revenue records, they were not issued with notice nor they were heard in the matter. He also submitted that, permission granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is only for 100 acres, whereas, acquisition is sought for 132 acres and there is no need to acquire the lands of the petitioners. He further submitted that, initially 509 acres was notified for acquisition under Section 28(1) of the Act, however, the said area was reduced to 132 acres. He further submitted that, there is no reasonableness in the approach of the respondents 2 to 4 even in the matter of extent of acquisition of land. He further submitted that. as per notification produced at Annexure- `P', issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, respondent N o.3 was required to prepare action plan, however, no such action plan is prepared. 18. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that, the establishment of Coal Thermal Power Project is very essential in the larger interest of the public, as the State is suffering from acute shortage of power. 18. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that, the establishment of Coal Thermal Power Project is very essential in the larger interest of the public, as the State is suffering from acute shortage of power. In this regard, the State taking into consideration the environment and ecological condition. has accorded permission to 3rd respondent. The said permission is granted after due consideration of various aspect. In this regard, 3rd respondent has obtained necessary permission from the State Pollution Control Board, clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, recommendation from the State to the Central Government, letter from Energy Department of the State Government for establishment, operating and maintaining of 1015 coal base project near Mangalore, re-utilization package, clearance from police, clearance from the fisheries department, clearance from forest department of State Government, approval from Mangalore Port Trust for allotment of jetty for transport, confirmation letter from Konkan Railways, no objection from Airport Authority for construction of Chimney and approval from other statutory authorities. 19. He also submitted that, land acquired is for formation of ash pond. The acquisition of land for main plant has been completed and even in respect of ash pond more than 105 acres of land has been acquired and possession is taken, except 9 acres land involved in this Writ Petition. He submitted that, the establishment of thermal power plant being in the larger interest of general public, the acquisition proceedings could not be stalled at the behest of owner of small portion of the acquired land. It is in this regard, he relied on the judgment reported in the matter of Om Prakash And Another Vs State Of G.P. And Others (1998)6 SCC 1 and submitted that, the Apex Court in the similar circumstances has held that, if almost 9/10th of the acquisition of the lands is complete, if dispute centering only around 1/ 10th of the lands, it is not feasible to interfere with the acquisition when large tracts of lands have been already acquired and also on the ground of delay, the Apex Court had declined to interfere with the acquisition. 20. 20. He further relied on another judgment of the Apex Court reported in the matter of Ramnikal N.Bhutta And Another Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others AIR 1997 SC 1236 and submitted that, when the larger public interest is involved, the discretionary power under Article 226 should be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on making of legal point and submitted that, when acquisition of main plant has been held valid and acquisition of land in respect of very purpose is upheld by the Court. Interfering with the acquisition in respect of very small extent of land would be opposed to the interest of public and would cause huge loss not only in terms of economy of the State, but will deny the generation of power. 21. He further submitted that, the acquisition is in the larger interest of public and at any rate power which is essential and shortage of power supply has adverse affected not only the economy of the State but also the agriculture, the Court must look into the larger interest rather than the technical legal point. He also relied on the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 87 and AIR 1985 SC 1709 and submitted that, the Court must harmeniously consider the notification to understand the intention and meaning and the purpose of acquisition. 22. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that, insofar as the contention as regard to the effect of acquisition on the environment and ecology is concerned, the matter is pending in Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.2180/2007 and the Division Bench is hearing the said matter. Hence, any finding that may be given, will have an effect on the contentions raised by the parties in the said Public Interest Litigation. 23. He submitted that, admittedly, out of 132 acres, possession of 105 acres is already taken and the lands involved in this Writ Petition is only to the extent of 9 acres and odd. 24. In order to commission the Coal Thermal Power Plant, several committees verified, studied the impact of the project and have found, this thermal power plant is eco-friendly. Authorities have granted permission after due verification of the requirement in law. 24. In order to commission the Coal Thermal Power Plant, several committees verified, studied the impact of the project and have found, this thermal power plant is eco-friendly. Authorities have granted permission after due verification of the requirement in law. The study of assessment of impact on the environment was made and it is found that, the project will not affect the environment and it only thereafter the permissions are granted. He further submitted that, substantial portion of lands have been already acquired, even for the ash pond, possession of larger extent of land has been taken. The commissioning project is held up only due to the pendency of the matter in respect of very small portion of the land. 25. The Company has already invested more than 725 crores as on March 2007, the financial commitment involves more than Rs.3,500 crores. At the instant of owners of 9 acres of land, if the project is held up, it will not only affect the interest of the respondent No.3, but it affects the interest of State, and other financial institution involved in the establishment of this project. It will have direct impact on the interest of the State. Company has already suffered huge financial loss and further delay will cause day to day loss. It is not only loss to the Company, but loss to the State, as the production of power will be delayed. Even as regards to the notification dated 14.9.1999 produced at Annexure- `P' is concerned, the said notification does not affect the project and time stipulation will commence only from the date on which the project is commissioned. 26. In this regard, he relied on the several additional documents produced along with objection statement filed by respondent No.3 to show that, in similar circumstances the permissions are granted subject for compliance with the notification dated 14.9.1999 by granting time of 9 years from the date of permission. Reading of Annexure- `P' does not indicate that, the complete utilization of fly ash has to be done within 9 years from the date of said notification, but it is only from the date of commission of the plant and not earlier. 27. Reading of Annexure- `P' does not indicate that, the complete utilization of fly ash has to be done within 9 years from the date of said notification, but it is only from the date of commission of the plant and not earlier. 27. As regards to the acquisition proceedings are concerned, he also submitted that, the proceedings have been completed in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Act and there is no irregularity or illegality in the said proceedings. 28. Sri Sabarad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 4 relied on the documents produced along with the statement of objections and pointed out that, notices were issued under Section 28(2) of the Act and wherever objections are filed, date was fixed for personal hearing and after hearing, report is submitted under Section 28(3) of the Act and thereafter, on consideration of report, final notification is issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. 29. He further submitted that, notification under Section 28(5) is also issued and the lands stood vested in the State. He also relied on the documents showing that, the notices have been served on the persons whose name appear in the Khatedar's column. He further submitted that, Annexures produced at 'A' to `G' relates to period of 2005-2006 onwards and acquisition proceedings are initiated in 1998. Hence, the said document will have not affect the acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that, the persons whose name appear, they have accepted the compensation. He also submitted that, in the similar circumstances, this Court has upheld the acquisition proceedings. He submitted that, as far as impact of the project on the environment is concerned, similar matter is pending in Public Interest Litigation before the Division Bench. Even otherwise, necessary permissions have been obtained. 30. Sri L.Govindraj, learned counsel appearing for the State Pollution Control Board submitted that, Pollution Control Board considering the nature of the plant and its location and also taking the consideration of other requirement in law and after verification, the Board has given permission. He submitted that, the plant will not have any impact on the environment or will cause any pollution or health hazard. He submitted that, the plant will not have any impact on the environment or will cause any pollution or health hazard. He further submitted that, the fly ash will be utilized scientifically without harming the nature or any environment and surrounding area and said fly ash would be utilized in face manner and the 3rd respondent has to adhere to the action plan for complete utilization of the fly ash. He submitted that, the pollution control Board has not committed any mistake in granting permission to the 3rd respondent to establish the power plant. 31. In reply Sri Naganand, learned senior counsel submitted that, no clearance for the site for ash pond is obtained. The permission granted on 20.3.1997 is not valid. He further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the matter of Shivaji Rao Nilangekar Patil Vs Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987)1 SCC 227 and submitted that, the Court must take into consider the things which are happening against the interest of public by glaring misuse of power by men in authority and position. Courts should take judicial notice of the phenomenon. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the allegation. 32. He also submitted that, there is no study of impact assessment. He also submitted that, no notices are issued either under Section 28(3) or 28(6) as alleged, petitioners 2, 4 and 6 whose name appear in the record of rights, they were not issued with notice. In this regard, he referred to RTC for the year 1986-87 and submitted that, Bhagi Sedthi is deceased and her ligatees are on record. He also submitted that, Sy.No. 126 belongs to Muttakka Sedthi. 33. Counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that, he has got interest in the land and supported the arguments of the petitioners. 34. In the light of the contentions raised by the learned counsels, the points that arises for consideration are; 1. Whether the acquisition of lands in question are violative of Section 28(2) and other provisions of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Development Board Act? 2. Whether Court could interfere with acquisition of land at the instance of owners of small portion of lands acquired when large extent of land is already, acquired? 3. Whether the acquisition will have an effect on the environment and ecology of that area? 4. 2. Whether Court could interfere with acquisition of land at the instance of owners of small portion of lands acquired when large extent of land is already, acquired? 3. Whether the acquisition will have an effect on the environment and ecology of that area? 4. Whether under the circumstances of this case, High Court could interfere with the acquisition in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Regarding point No.3; 35. It is not in dispute that, a Public Interest Litigation is pending in Writ Petition No.2180/2007 in regard to the impact of the Thermal Power Project on the environment and ecology. It is also submitted that the contentions raised in this Writ Petition are identical to one raised in the said Writ Petition. Since the matter is pending before the Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation as regards to the impact of the project on the environment, in my opinion. it will not be proper on my part to advert to the contentions relating to impact of the Thermal Power Project on the environment and ecology. Regarding points N o. 1 , 2 and 4; 36. Insofar as the acquisition is concerned. learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied on Annexures- `A' to `G' i.e. in respect of the scheduled properties. Respondents No.2 and 4 have filed objection statement specifically contending that, name of petitioner No.2 does not appear in the record of rights. Petitioner No.1 was issued with notice and gave the date for personal hearing. 3rd petitioner is concerned, only 1 acre 56 cents land is sought to be acquired, which also includes land of 4th petitioner. 3rd petitioner was issued with notice fixing the date of appearance. 5th petitioner is concerned, it is admitted by the respondents No.2 and 4 that, no land is acquired. It is contended that. 6th petitioner's name is not entered in the revenue records nor the 6th petitioner is a Khatedar and 7th petitioner was issued notice. 37. This is evident from the records produced at Annexures-R1 to R14 along with objection statement of respondents No.2 and 4. Even looking at the Annexures- 'A' to 'G', all these record of rights pertains to the period from 2005-2006 onwards. As for as petitioner No.1 is concerned, Annexure- R4 shows, notice issued by the petitioner No.2. Admittedly, his name is not reflected in the revenue record. Even looking at the Annexures- 'A' to 'G', all these record of rights pertains to the period from 2005-2006 onwards. As for as petitioner No.1 is concerned, Annexure- R4 shows, notice issued by the petitioner No.2. Admittedly, his name is not reflected in the revenue record. In turn, one Muttakka Sedthi's name appeared as per Annexure- R1. It appears that, she has received the compensation and one Sarojini Sedthi has also filed statement of objections. Annexure- R6 also shows that, one Bhagi Shedthi and others were also issued with notice under Section 28(2) of the Act. Insofar as the lands bearing Sy.No.22/4, notices have been issued by the respondent No.2. Even for respondent No.7, as per Annexure- R9, it shows notice issued to him. Annexure-R11 shows notice issued to petitioner No.4. Annexure- R13 is another notice under Section 28(6) issued to petitioner No.7. Annexure- R14 is the mahazar showing the possession of the lands taken. Looking at these documents, they shows that, the persons whose names appear in the record of rights at relevant point of time, have been issued with notice and it is also specifically contended by the respondents No.2 and 4 that, specific notices were issued to the concerned parties. 38. As far as these petitioners are concern, names of most of the petitioners is not found in record of rights at relevant point of time and petitioners have also not produced the relevant record of rights for relevant period. 39. Considering the records produced by the respondents No.2 and 4 and also considering the documents produced by the petitioners at Annexures- `A' to `G' for 2005-06 onwards, and some of the petitioners have been issued with notice and some petitioners though claimed that they are interested parties, but they have not produced any documents to show that, at relevant point of time, their names did appear in the record of rights. In the light of these documents, I find that, there is no irregulanty in the acquisition proceedings. Further, most of the Khatedars were issued with notices and some have filed objections and some have not filed and based on the report submitted under Section 28(3) of the Act, the final notification has been issued. It is also pointed out that, in some case the compensation is also accepted. It is not the case of total non-issue of notice. It is also pointed out that, in some case the compensation is also accepted. It is not the case of total non-issue of notice. In fact, some of these petitioners have signed the objections filed in representative capacity. It is not the case of the petitioners that, they had no knowledge of the acquisition. There is compliance of the provisions of Sections 28(2), 28(3) and 28 (6) etc. In this case, even notification under Section 28(5) of the Act has been issued and in respect of very land acquisition, this Court in Writ Appeal No.110/2007 dated 5.9.2007 has observed as under: "When once acquisition has been upheld, the question of taking possession of the acquired land would be a formality. Therefore, that cannot be the subject matter of a Writ Petition after the acquisition has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the said contention also. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. " 40. Apart from the above in identical circumstances, this Court has upheld the acquisition in Writ Petition No.1489/2006 dated 24.9.2007 and Writ Petition No.17134/2006 dated 25.9.2007 and the order of the learned Single Judge is also confirmed by the Division Bench. 41. Thermal Project is sought to be established by the 3rd respondent and in this regard the clearance are obtained by various authorities. Insofar as the main plant is concerned, it is stated that, the acquisition proceeding is complete and what is sought to be acquired in the notification at Annexures- `H' and -K' is, only in respect of ash pond. It is also not in dispute that, out of 132 acres, more than 105 acres of possession of land has been taken and it is also stated by respondent No.2 that, only 9 acres of land is involved in this Writ Petition. 42. Apex Court in the matter of Om Prakash and another – vs- State of U.P. and others considered the validity of acquisition of small extent of land as against large extent acquired and observed that, it is not feasible to interfere with the acquisition by invoking discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also held that, delay of 6 years from the date of notification would not be feasible to put the clock back and permit the petitioners to state their contentions. It also held that, delay of 6 years from the date of notification would not be feasible to put the clock back and permit the petitioners to state their contentions. It is useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Om Prakash case (supra) at paragraph 30 which reads as under; "Under these circumstances we find considerable force in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that it is neither advisable nor feasible to interfere with the acquisition of such large tracts of lands when the occupants of 9/10th of the acquired lands have not thought it fit to challenge these acquisition proceedings and the occupants of only 1/10th of lands are agitating their grievance since more than six years, firstly before the High Court and then before this Court. The appellants main grievance certres round the question whether their lands having alleged abadi could be acquired in the light of the State policy for not acquiring .such lands. For such a contention, of course, grievance could have been made under Section 5-A in inquiry it'll was held. But that could have been urged years back before section 6 notification saw the light of day in 1992. In the passage of time of six years, it would not be feasible to put the clock back and permit the appellants to agitate this contention which appears to he the sole contention for opposing the acquisition. It also observed that, we cannot permit upsetting the entire acquisition of 500 acres only at the behest of landowners whose lands are sought to be acquired. We may also keep in view the further salient fact that all the appellants have filed references for additional compensation under Section 18 of the Act. " 43. In this case also, the acquisition proceeding is initiated in 1998 and final notification is issued in 2006. No doubt Writ Petition is filed in 2007, however, what is to be noted is, apart from the substantial land is acquired, as per the respondent No.3, the investment and financial commitment and the public interest involved in the acquisition would certainly does not inspire the Court to invoke discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set at naught what has already been done. 44. 44. This Court by order dated 9.12.1999 has upheld the validity of the acquisition in respect of the very notification at the instance of some of the owners of the lands in Writ Petition Nos.23885 to 23892/1999 and it is confirmed by the Division Bench. It is also necessary to mention that, the financial commitment for the whole project is estimated at Rs.3,500 crores. It is also stated that, Rs.725 crores have been invested. It also clear from the agreement between the State Government and 3rd respondent that the financial institutions have assured advance loan to the tune of nearly 35 crores and some amount might have been already released. It is also stated that, day to day delay would involves estimated loss of 5 crores per day. Taking these circumstances into account and importance of the project in the larger interest of the public, the Court must also look into the feasibility to interfere with the acquisition. Apex Court in the matter of Ramniklal N. Bhutta Vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1997 SC 1239, which reads as under; "10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We with to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as, "Asian tigers ", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These tings very, often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. It is however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/ injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a Civil Suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226— indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even by open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceeding is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the Courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings. 45. In my opinion, acquisition proceedings admittedly is for establishment of Coal Thermal Power Project involving production of 1015 MW. The Court cannot ignore the acute need of power for sustenance of the State economy and at the same time it also cannot ignore the protection of environment. 45. In my opinion, acquisition proceedings admittedly is for establishment of Coal Thermal Power Project involving production of 1015 MW. The Court cannot ignore the acute need of power for sustenance of the State economy and at the same time it also cannot ignore the protection of environment. The permission referred to by the parties clearly shows that, the 3rd respondent has obtained permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest and also from the State Pollution Control Board in connection with environment and the project also involved the use of scientific method in the matter of utilization of the fly ash. As far as Annexure- 'P' is concerned. reading of Annexure- ' P' itself shows that, the period of complete utilization of the fly ash would commenced from the date of which, the project is established and it cannot be held that, the period commenced from the date of notification. It is useful to refer some of the permissions subsequently granted by the 6th respondent produced at Annexures- R16 along with rejoinder filed by respondent No.3, wherein, 9 years period is stipulate for 100% utilization of fly ash and similarly Exs.R17, R18 are also similar in nature. By these documents and also the reading of Annexure- `P', it does show that, the utilization of fly ash would commence only from the date of functioning of the plant. 46. These documents do prove that, the fly ash should be completely utilized in face manner within the period of 9 years and in this case, since the power project is yet to be commenced, the period cannot be estimated from the date of said notification. As such, interpretation would leads to impossibility of commencing the Coal Thermal Power Project, contentions are raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that, scientific device can be used without discharging fly ash to pond, no doubt any advance technology can be used wherever it is possible. But on the interpretation of the documents, I am of the opinion that, Annexure- `P' is not intended to restrict the period from the date of notification and it has to be from the date of commencement of the generation of power. 47. Considering the matter from any angle, I find no good ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly Writ Petition fails and same is dismissed.