Judgment :- 1. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19938/07 and other connected Writ Petitions dt.21.7.2010 is called in question in these appeals. 2. The subject matter of the Writ Petition is pertaining to 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.34 of Kengeri in Bangalore South Taluk which was notified under the preliminary notification dt.16.12.1999 published on 20.1.2000 in the Official Gazette. Along with the aforesaid land Sy.Nos.37/1 and 37/2 were also notified which lands were acquitted by the BSWSSB, later sold it to BMTC for a sum of Rs.120 lakhs. In addition to that three more Sy.Nos.35, 36/1 and 36/2 in all measuring 3 acres 15 guntas were also notified which were denotified later at the instance of the landlords of those Survey Numbers. The petitioners who have purchased the property as sites and the legal heirs of the owners filed the Writ Petitions contending that the real Khatedars were not notified in the preliminary notification as well as in the final notification and notification is made in the name of Sanjeeva S/o Sanjeeva who died about 50 years back who was the great grand father of Lokesh and Srinivas and the notification issued in the name of a dead person is a nullity and it was also contended within a period of 2 years from the date of preliminary notification, no award has been passed and within one year from the date of preliminary notification, final notification as required under Sec.6(1) of the Act was not issued. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that khatedars were not notified and acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of a dead person which is a nullity. In addition to that BWSSB having deleted major extent of land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.Nos.35, 36/1 and 36/2 and later selling Sy.No.37/1 and 37/2 in favour of BMTC for a sum of Rs.120 lakhs cannot contend that there is a need for 12 guntas to construct a Sewerage Treatment plant which has been converted into sites and developed. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions came to be allowed. Preliminary notification dt.16.12.1999 and so also the final notification so far as it relates to 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.34, Kengeri were quashed. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge these appeals are filed. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions came to be allowed. Preliminary notification dt.16.12.1999 and so also the final notification so far as it relates to 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.34, Kengeri were quashed. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge these appeals are filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that khatedars were not notified properly. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Khatedar is shown in the notification as Sanjeeva s/o Sanjeeva and notice has been served on the S/o Sanjeeva by name Lokesh and though an attempt is made to convince the court from the date of final notification, it was well within the time and thereafter award was passed from the date of preliminary notification, she is unable to convince the court. The counsel for the appellant, further admits that as per notifications, Khatedars name is shown as Sanjeeva S/o Sanjeeva. 4. The learned Single Judge in para-6 of his order has given the genealogical tree. As per genealogical tree, Sanjeeva S/o Sanjeeva had died 50 years back and he had two sons by name, Chinnaiah and Thayappa who also died about 30 and 35 years respectively and Chinnaiah had sons by name, Nuniswamappa and Sanjeevappa and Thayappa had a son by name Mariyappa. Therefore, from genealogical tree, it is clear that Sanjeeva S/o Sanjeeva died about 50 years back and the said person is not the khatedar and no notice is served on the khatedar. Therefore, this court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition by setting aside the notification. 5. On perusal of the notification, it is also clear that within the stipulated period of one year, no final notification is issued and no award is passed in time. Therefore, this court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition by setting aside the notification. 5. On perusal of the notification, it is also clear that within the stipulated period of one year, no final notification is issued and no award is passed in time. In addition to that when 37 acres 24 guntas of land was notified for the purpose of Sewerage Treatment Plant and when the entire extent of land is de-notified except Sy.Nos.33 and 34, namely 1 acre 5 guntas and 11 guntas respectively, this court cannot understand what made the BWSSB to delete the land stipulated in Sy.Nos.35, 36/1, 36/2 and alienate the land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sewerage Plant in favour of BMTC for a huge sum of Rs.120 lakhs in respect of Sy.Nos.37/1 and 37/2. 6. In this background, what the court can infer is that under the guise of acquiring the property of the farmers to establish a Sewerage plant, property is sold in favour of BMTC for a market value by paying less value to the farmers and denotified the lands of the influential persons and it is nothing but a colourable exercise of power of the Government in acquiring only the lands of the respondents measuring 12 guntas and 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.33. If the Treatment Plant has to be established in a total extent of 37 acres 33 guntas, is it possible for the BWSSB to establish such a Treatment plant in a small bit of land and there is no proper explanation in this regard. 7. Viewed from any angle, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petitions and quashing the notification which was issued in the name of a dead person and as interested persons were not notified and heard in the matter. 8. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of these appeals, Misc.W.8530/10 for stay and Misc.W.1858/11 for production of additional documents are rejected.