ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petitions in the nature of public interest litigations, the petitioners pray for quashing of the Final Notification No.RD/04/LRD/2019 dated 08.02.2021 issued by respondent No.1 -State of Karnataka by which, Kampli Taluk was included in Ballari District. They have also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to include Kampli Taluk in the newly formed Vijayanagara District. 2. In W.P.No.5971/2021, petitioner Nos.1 to 13 are the residents of Kampli Taluk and are members of petitioner No.14 –Association which was formed for raising a demand for inclusion of Kampli Taluk in the newly formed Vijayanagara District. In W.P.No.5222/2021, the petitioners are the Associations. 3. By a notification dated 14.12.2020 (a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-A), respondent No.1 proposed to alter the limits of Ballari District to constitute a new district called as Vijayanagara District. The said notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette calling upon the general public to submit their objections/suggestions. In response to the same, the petitioners filed their objections objecting for inclusion of Kampli Taluk in Ballari District and requested that it would be convenient to the people of Kampli Taluk and the surrounding villages if Kampli Taluk is included in Vijayanagara District. A news item was published in the local newspaper “Vishwavani” along with a map showing that Kampli Taluk would become part of Vijayanagara District. It is stated that the decision of inclusion or exclusion of a Taluk would depend upon various factors such as, population, locality, revenue collection, demand of general public and administrative convenience. These factors are also referred to in various Government notifications as well as in the relevant provisions of law. The Taluk Panchayath of Kampli also convened a meeting on 02.01.2021 and a resolution was passed resolving its decision to retain Kampli Taluk in Vijayanagara District. A copy of the resolution dated 04.01.2021 is also placed on record as Annexure-D in W.P.No.5971/2021. Pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government declaring its intention to form Vijayanagara District by altering the limits of Ballari District, a report was called for through respondent No.5 -Deputy Commissioner of Ballari District, who submitted his report on 28.09.2019. A copy of the report is placed on record as Annexure-E in W.P.No.5971/2021. Pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government declaring its intention to form Vijayanagara District by altering the limits of Ballari District, a report was called for through respondent No.5 -Deputy Commissioner of Ballari District, who submitted his report on 28.09.2019. A copy of the report is placed on record as Annexure-E in W.P.No.5971/2021. In spite of the objections filed by the petitioners and the report of respondent No.5 -Deputy Commissioner, to the surprise of the petitioners, a final notification dated 08.02.2021 was issued by the State Government taking a decision for inclusion of Kampli Taluk in Ballari District instead of Vijayanagara District. Feeling aggrieved by the final notification, several protests were held by the residents of Kampli Taluk and wide publicity was given by the newspapers to such protests. One of such publication has appeared in daily newspaper “Deccan Herald” on 01.12.2020 (a copy of the which is placed on record as Annexure-G in W.P.No.5971/2021). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that Sections 4 and 6 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides for calling for objections and consideration of the same by the State Government before taking a final decision. He submits that admittedly, the petitioners and the residents of Kampli Taluk have submitted their objections opposing inclusion of Kampli Taluk in Ballari District and sought for its inclusion in Vijayanagara District. However, without considering the objections, a final decision was taken by the State Government for inclusion of Kampli Taluk in Ballari District. He further submits that the relevant factors such as, topography of the village, the demand of public and the inconvenience being caused to public are ignored by the State Government before taking such a decision. He also submits that Rule 5 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 contemplates examination of objections in response to the notification and calling for report from the Commissioner with his remarks. He submits that in the present case also, the report was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari District supporting inclusion of Kampli Taluk in Vijayanagara District, but the same was not considered by the State Government and as such, the impugned final notification dated 08.02.2021 is unsustainable. He further submits that such a decision was taken by the State Government at the insistence of a political person. He further submits that such a decision was taken by the State Government at the insistence of a political person. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a letter issued by the Member of Legislative Assembly. The learned counsel has also relied on certain judgments in support of his submissions and prayed that the writ petitions be allowed. 5. The writ petitions are opposed by the State Government by filing statement of objections. The learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently submits that the demand of the residents of the area is only one of the factors for consideration and it cannot be the sole criteria for arriving at a final decision. He submits that the petitioners themselves admitted that apart from the demand of the residents of the area, there are various other considerations such as, convenience of public, locational advantage, administrative convenience etc. He further submits that only after complying with all the necessary formalities which are the prerequisites, the State Government has taken the final decision. He also submits that the locational advantage is one of the considerations and the distance of Kampli Taluk is just about 38 Kms from Ballari District Headquarters. The learned Additional Government Advocate admits that certain news items were published, including a news item in “Deccan Herald” along with a map showing that Kampli Taluk was included in Vijayanagara District. He submits that publication of map showing inclusion of Kampli Taluk in Vijayanagara District before the final decision by the State Government itself is a wrong committed by the said newspaper and mere publication of a news item showing inclusion of some Taluk in a particular district does not bind the State Government to take the ultimate decision. He further submits that though a local representative has forwarded a noting in the form of suggestion on the demand of public, such a noting is not binding upon the State Government to take the final decision. In support of the said submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAHADEO AND OTHERS Vs SMT. SOVAN DEVI AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.5876/2022). In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, it is held as under: “A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. SOVAN DEVI AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.5876/2022). In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, it is held as under: “A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2)”. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on certain judgments in support of his submissions. Firstly, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS, AIR 1987 SC 1239 . In the said case, the challenge to the notification was made for not following the principles of natural justice and it was an admitted fact that no opportunity was granted to the residents of the locality. On the backdrop of the said fact, it was observed by the Apex Court as under: “Admittedly, the way of life varies, depending upon where one lives. Inclusion of an area covered by a Gram Panchayat within a notified area would certainly involve civil consequences. In such circumstances, it is necessary that people who will be affected by the change should be given an opportunity of being heard, otherwise they would be visited with serious consequences like loss of office in Gram Panchayats, an imposition of a way of life, higher incidences of tax and the like.” Admittedly, this is not the fact situation in the present case. The State Government has issued a notification declaring its intention to form Vijayanagara District which was also published in the Karnataka Gazette calling upon the general public to submit their objections/suggestions. The State Government has issued a notification declaring its intention to form Vijayanagara District which was also published in the Karnataka Gazette calling upon the general public to submit their objections/suggestions. In response to the same, the petitioners have submitted their objections and as such, it cannot be said that no opportunity was granted to them. Thus, in our opinion, the above judgment would not be of any help to the petitioners. 7. The second judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of JAMAKANDI ZILLA HORATA SAMITHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (W.P.NO.13882/1997 and connected matters). Even the said judgment proceeds on the line that an opportunity of hearing would be necessary before the Government arrives at the final conclusion. In that matter, as the suggestions were considered, it was not necessary for the Government to consider the objections. The Division Bench observed that there is a difference between objections and suggestions. Suggestions cannot be equated with objections and non-consideration of suggestions was in breach of the provisions of law and the same is unsustainable. At the cost of repetition, we state that in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that final decision has been taken by the State Government only on the basis of suggestions. On the contrary, it is nobody's case that in response to the impugned notification, certain suggestions were made to the Government. It is the case of the petitioners themselves that they have filed their objections and admittedly, those objections were considered by the Government. Thus, even this judgment is of no help to the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of PROF. A. LAKSHMISAGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 1992 KAR 1529. In the said judgment, a reference is made to the definition of “village” in Section 2(38) and further reference to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Apart from this reference, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable and as such, even this judgment is of no help to the petitioners. Same is the case about the unreported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BRIG. Apart from this reference, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable and as such, even this judgment is of no help to the petitioners. Same is the case about the unreported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BRIG. NALIN KUMAR BHATIA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.5751/2017) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY Vs. NEW STANDARD ENGINEERING CO. LTD, (1991) 1 SCC 611 . In this judgment also, reference is made to necessary provisions and procedural safeguards. At the cost of repetition, we state that in the present case, all the necessary provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in the nature of procedural safeguards are duly followed by the State Government. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the petitioners have filed their objections and as there was a positive report submitted by respondent No.5, the State Government ought not to have taken the decision for exclusion of Kampli Taluk from Vijayanagara District. It can safely be said that consideration of objections and submission of report are the requirements of law but, only on these counts, the Government is not expected to take a final decision. The learned Additional Government Advocate is right in submitting that the State Government has taken the final decision after considering all the aspects comprehensively including administrative convenience, locational advantage etc. 10. The writ petitions, being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 11. The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.