ORDER : Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel and Ms.Deepika Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners at length and Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners who claim to be the residents/agriculturists of Hommadevanahalli, Myllasandra and Vittasandra villages, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru have challenged the notification dated 26.03.2018 issued by respondent No.3- Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department. A copy of the said notification is placed on record at (page 33) whereas, the translation is provided at (page 35) at Annexure-A. By the said notification, His Excellency, the Governor by exercising the powers conferred upon him by Sections 3 and 9 read with Section 349 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 has notified the ‘Grama Panchayat’s Area’ of Doddathoguru including Bettadasanapura Residential area mentioned in Schedule-A along with boundaries mentioned in Schedule-B as the ‘Transitional Area’ of the Doddathoguru and further, specifying such area to the ‘Town Panchayat Area’ of Doddathoguru. In the petition, it is urged that the issue involved is affecting all the villagers at large and the development of the farm has come to stand still. In order to protect and safeguard the villagers, the instant petition is filed. The petitioners also make a reference to an earlier Writ Petition No.16604/2018 which was withdrawn on 26.07.2022. There is also a reference to an interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of the said petition. It is stated that the said writ petition was filed at the instance of the President of Panchayat and as his term came to an end, he sought for withdrawal of the petition. There is an order dated 20.11.2017 placed on record passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.40686-40690/2017 C/w 36540/2017. In these writ petitions, the earlier notifications issued by the State Government dated 18.08.2017 and 11.07.2017 were challenged. The ground raised in these petitions was of non-compliance of Section 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, the said Act of 1964). The Division Bench, considering the fact that there was a deficiency in compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act of 1964, allowed the petitions and notifications dated 18.08.2017 and 11.07.2017 were set aside. The Division Bench, considering the fact that there was a deficiency in compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act of 1964, allowed the petitions and notifications dated 18.08.2017 and 11.07.2017 were set aside. At the same time, the interest of the State Government was protected by granting liberty to the State to redo the exercise from the stage of consideration of the objections received opposing constitution of Pattana Panchayat/Municipal Council. 3. A perusal of the notification under challenge in this petition is that the State Government to redo the exercise as directed by this Court from the stage of receipt of objections by making reference to the aspects namely, the population of the area, density of the population and percentage of employment. 4. Though, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notification is unsustainable on two grounds i.e., no opportunity of hearing was granted to the objectors who had submitted the objection before the State Government, the order is not in detail and it only refers to certain factual aspects such as, notification was issued, objections were invited and the Authority undertook the exercise and re-examined the same, we are unable to find any merits in the above submissions. Section 9 of the said Act of 1964, which is the key Section reads thus:- “9. Section 9 of the said Act of 1964, which is the key Section reads thus:- “9. Procedure for constitution, abolition, etc., of [smaller urban areas].—Not less than [thirty days] before the publication of any notification declaring any local area to be a [smaller urban area], or altering the limits of any such [smaller urban area] or declaring that any local area shall cease to be [smaller urban area], the [Governor] shall cause to be published in the official Gazette, in English and Kannada, and to be posted up in conspicuous places in the said local area in Kannada, a proclamation announcing that it is proposed to constitute the local area to be [smaller urban area], or to alter the limits of the [smaller urban area] in a certain manner, or to declare that the local area shall cease to be a [smaller urban area], as the case may be, and requiring all persons who entertain any objection to the said proposal to submit the same, with the reasons therefor, in writing to the [Director of Municipal Administration] within [thirty days] from the date of the said proclamation, and whenever it is proposed to add to or exclude from a [smaller urban area] any inhabited area, it shall be the duty of the municipal council also to cause a copy of such proclamation to be posted up in conspicuous places in such area. The Commissioner shall, with all reasonable despatch, forward every objection so submitted to the [Governor]. No such notification as aforesaid shall be issued by the [Governor] unless the objections, if any, so submitted are in [his] opinion insufficient or invalid.” 5. We are unable to find any prerequisite in Section 9 of the said Act of 1964 as to offering an opportunity of hearing to the objectors. The prerequisite in Section 9 of the said Act of 1964 is only calling upon the objections and stipulated period to submit the objections in writing to the competent Authority and in turn, the Authority is to consider the objections. At the cost of repetition, we state that there is nothing in Section 9 of the said Act of 1964 which mandates the Authority for offering an opportunity of personal hearing to the objectors. There is also no requirement under Section 9 of the said Act of 1964 of passing any detailed orders. At the cost of repetition, we state that there is nothing in Section 9 of the said Act of 1964 which mandates the Authority for offering an opportunity of personal hearing to the objectors. There is also no requirement under Section 9 of the said Act of 1964 of passing any detailed orders. Thus, we are unable to accept both the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. With regard to the submission that the impugned notification is not in consonance with Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, this ground is urged only by way of an oral submission and the same is not raised in the petition. 6. Be that as it may, it may not be out of place to state here that Section 349 of the said Act of 1964 prescribes certain prerequisites. Section 349 reads as under:- “349. Specifying transitional area.—(1) the Governor may, having regard to the factors mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 3, and subject to the provisions of section 9 specify, by notification, any area to be a transitional area: Provided that no such area shall be so specified as a transitional area unless,— (a) such area contains a population of not less than ten thousand but less than twenty thousand; (b) the density of population in such area is not less than four hundred inhabitants to one square kilometer of area; (c) the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities is not less than fifty percent of the total employment. Provided further that if a Taluka Head quarters is situated in such area, the Governor may, specify such area to be a transitional area even though it contains population of less than ten thousand.” 7. Now, the factors in Article 243Q of the Constitution of India are also referred to as the factors having regard for issuing of notification. Article 243Q of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “243Q. Now, the factors in Article 243Q of the Constitution of India are also referred to as the factors having regard for issuing of notification. Article 243Q of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “243Q. Constitution of Municipalities- (1) There shall be constituted in every State,- (a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area; (b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and (c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of this Part: Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit, by public notification, specify to be an industrial township. (2) In this article, “a transitional area”, “a smaller urban area” or “a larger urban area” means such area as the Governor may, having regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in nonagricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part. (emphasis supplied) 8. Needless to state that Section 349 of the said Act, 1964 is in consonance with the Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Thus, the co-joint reading of Section 349 of the said Act of 1964 and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the factors to be considered are the population of area; the density of population, the percentage of employment. Thus, the co-joint reading of Section 349 of the said Act of 1964 and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the factors to be considered are the population of area; the density of population, the percentage of employment. In the impugned notification dated 26.03.2018, it is stated that ‘Grama Panchayat’s Area’ of Doddathoguru including Bettadasanapura Residential area mentioned in Schedule-A along with boundaries mentioned in Schedule-B as the ‘Transitional Area’ of the Doddathoguru and further specifying such area to the ‘Town Panchayat Area’ of Doddathoguru, having regard to the Population of such area is not less than ten thousand and not more than twenty thousand; the density of population in such area is not less than four hundred inhabitants to one square kilometer of area; the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities is not less than fifty percent of the total employment. Thus, in our opinion, the notification dated 26.03.2018 is complying with all the prerequisites of Section 349 of the said Act of 1964 and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. 9. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Champa Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 356 and submitted that the impugned notification is unsustainable, as the requirement is to issuance of separate notification and such, separate notification is not issued by the Governor nor the source of power is indicated in the notification. 10. On perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Champa lal reveals that the notification under challenge was initially before the Rajasthan High Court and subsequently, before the Hon’ble Apex Court which refers to only one of the aspect and that was the population. Secondly, there was source of power indicated in the notification. Now in the present petition, the facts are totally distinguishable. The impugned notification makes reference to not only the population but, the factors referred in the notification are the population; the density of population and the percentage of employment. Secondly, the notification, in clear words, makes a reference to the source of power. Now in the present petition, the facts are totally distinguishable. The impugned notification makes reference to not only the population but, the factors referred in the notification are the population; the density of population and the percentage of employment. Secondly, the notification, in clear words, makes a reference to the source of power. As such, even these submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are not acceptable and it can safely be said that the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel is of no help to the petitioners, as the judgment is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present petition. It may also be noted, at this stage, that the impugned notification was issued by the State Government in the year 2018 and the petition filed at the instance of the present petitioners is in the year 2022 and there is no explanation for the delay of four years in filing the petition. We have considered all the justified submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the impugned notification was issued by the State Government by considering all the necessary factors and the notification is in strict compliance of Section 349 of the said Act of 1964 and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Thus, in our opinion, the petition is devoid of merits and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.