ORDER : R. Devdas, J. These batch of writ petitions have been filed by the landowners of various extents of lands, which were notified for acquisition by the respondent-State of Karnataka for the benefit of the respondent-Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited (NICE), for the formation of a mega project known as ‘Nandi Infrastructure Corridor’, where expressway of 111 kms., including interchanges, Toll plaza (4528 Acres); Peripheral road 41 kms., (2193 Acres) and Link road measuring 9.8 kms., (278 Acres) were proposed to be formed and constructed. The prayers in all these writ petitions are to quash the acquisition proceedings on the ground that no awards have been passed till date, although the acquisition notification under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) were issued during the years commencing from 1998 to 2009 and final notifications under Section 28 (4) of the Act, were issued from the year 2003 to 2009. Therefore, all these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners, led by learned Senior Counsel Sri.H.N.Shashidhara have prefaced their arguments on the basis of a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.6763/2017 dated 08.06.2023 in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB Vs. Smt. M.Shakunthalamma and Others 3. It has been pointed that the Hon’ble Division Bench rejected the contentions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in directing the KIADB to pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and noticed the fact that in another case i.e., W.A.No.557/2021 dated 23.03.2022 in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer and Another Vs. K.H.Shivanna And Others , it had held that 9 years delay in passing the award is fatal to the proceedings and had quashed the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of lands. The said order was challenged by the KIADB in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22081/2022 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 02.12.2022 dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. It was noticed that 11 years had elapsed and no award was passed and therefore, the acquisition notifications of the year 2008 and 2009 were required to be quashed. The said order was challenged by the KIADB in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22081/2022 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 02.12.2022 dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. It was noticed that 11 years had elapsed and no award was passed and therefore, the acquisition notifications of the year 2008 and 2009 were required to be quashed. It was pointed out that the said acquisitions were also for the benefit of the respondent-NICE. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench proceeded to quash the notifications dated 16.08.2008 and 21.03.2009, on the ground that more than 11 years had elapsed and no award was passed. The said judgment of the Division Bench has been confirmed at the hands of the Apex Court in SLP Dairy No.3767/2024 dated 01.04.2024. The Apex Court has held that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of cases where there was delay of 11 years in passing the award and therefore, it is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsels Sri.D.L.N.Rao and Sri.R.V.S.Naik, appearing for respondent-NICE and learned Senior Counsel Sri.Prabhuling K. Navadgi, appearing for impleading applicants/subsequent purchasers, have contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has confirmed the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of this Court and upheld the acquisition proceedings in Civil Appeal Nos.3492- 3494/2005 and connected matters on 20.04.2006. It is contended that the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) has been implemented in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court. Once again, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Special Leave Petition No.2691/2010 and later in Civil Appeal No.1215/2011 upheld the acquisition proceedings and dismissed the Civil Appeal imposing costs of Rs.10 Lakhs on one of the petitioners herein viz., Sri.M.Nagabhushana (W.P.No.13956/2022) and the said judgment is reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 . It was therefore contended that the prayer made in the writ petitions cannot be granted. 5. To this, learned Senior Counsel Sri.H.N.Shashidhara appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2012) 12 SCC 443 has held that multiple causes of action may arise during the acquisition proceedings. It was therefore contended that the prayer made in the writ petitions cannot be granted. 5. To this, learned Senior Counsel Sri.H.N.Shashidhara appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2012) 12 SCC 443 has held that multiple causes of action may arise during the acquisition proceedings. At each stage, a fresh cause of action may arise and therefore, it cannot be contended that a landowner who has suffered an order of dismissal in the earlier round of litigations is precluded from filing subsequent writ petitions. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that having regard to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Smt.M.Shakunthalamma (supra), which is based on a new cause of action viz., inordinate delay in passing award in acquisition proceedings, which is detrimental to the interest of the landowners, these writ petitions have been filed. 6. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Prabhuling K. Navadgi, that some of the writ petitions are filed by subsequent purchasers and therefore, such writ petitions filed at the hands of the subsequent purchasers are not maintainable. 7. Heard the learned Senior Counsels Sri.H.N.Shashidhara, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, Sri.Sriranga and learned Counsels Sri.B.Ramesh, Sri.T.N.Vishwanatha, Sri.S.A.Sridhara Murthy, Sri.K.K. Vasanth, Sri.Srikanth S., Sri.A.V.Srihari, Sri.Raghavendra Kattimani M., Sri.R.Raviprakash, Sri.Vamshi Krishna C., Sri.Krishna B.R., Sri.Clifton D.Rozario, Sri.Kalyan R., Sri.K.K.Vasanth, Sri.Bhadrinath R., for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsels Sri.D.L.N Rao, Sri.R.V.S.Naik, Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, Sri.S.A.Ahmed, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri.Mallaharao K., learned Additional Advocate General, Sri.Siddarth Babu Rao, Sri.Ravindra V Reddy, Special Counsels, and learned Counsels Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, Sri.B.B.Patil, Sri.Nitin Prasad, Sri.K.Krishna, Sri.Yogesh D Naik and Sri.Ashok N Nayak, appearing for the respondent-NICE, NECE, KIADB, BDA, BMICPA and perused the petition papers. 8. As rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel Sri.H.N.Shashidhara and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), the writ petitions are maintainable, although earlier writ petitions filed by some of the petitioners herein have been dismissed at the hands of this Court and at the hands of the Hon’ble Apex Court. As rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel Sri.H.N.Shashidhara and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), the writ petitions are maintainable, although earlier writ petitions filed by some of the petitioners herein have been dismissed at the hands of this Court and at the hands of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The grounds raised in these writ petitions are that despite the preliminary notifications of acquisition under Section 28 (1) of the Act, 1966 being issued during the years 1998 to 2009 and the final notifications under Section 28 (4) of the Act, being issued in the years 2003 to 2009, the respondent-State and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) have failed to pass an award till date. In fact, it has to be noticed that the respondent-Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited/Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited, have filed two writ petitions before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus/direction to the respondent-State and the SLAO to pass awards. That being the position, having regard to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.M.Shakunthalamma (supra), setting aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground that no award was passed even after lapse of 11 years and the said judgment being upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is required to follow the same. 9. More than 23 years have passed since the notifications for acquisition were issued during the years from 1998 to 2009 and awards have not been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Having regard to the plight of the landowners who are deprived of the use and occupation of agricultural lands and they losing their livelihood, this Court has no other option, than to follow the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 10. During the course of the proceedings it was submitted at the hands of the learned counsels for the petitioners that the lands in question are not part of the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) and no part of the lands in question have been utilized by the respondents for formation of expressway, interchanges, toll plaza, peripheral road or link road. The said submission has not been controverted at the hands of the learned counsels for the respondents. 11. The said submission has not been controverted at the hands of the learned counsels for the respondents. 11. Insofar as the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Prabhuling K.Navadgi, that subsequent purchasers have filed some of these writ petitions, although it is true that writ petitions are not maintainable at the hands of subsequent purchasers raising a challenge to the acquisition proceedings, nevertheless, having regard to the enormity of the extent of the lands notified for acquisition and a large majority of the writ petitions filed at the hands of the landowners are being allowed, dismissing the other writ petitions may not be warranted. The benefit of such declaration and quashment of the acquisition notifications will nevertheless enure to the benefit of the landowners only. 12. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petitions are allowed (ii) The impugned preliminary notifications dated 27.10.1998, 09.12.1998, 19.12.1998, 02.06.1999, 03.06.1999, 29.01.2003 and 21.03.2009 issued under Section 28 (1) of the Act, and final notifications dated 18.02.2003, 12.03.2003, 08.04.2003, 08.05.2003, 21.05.2003, 24.06.2003, 05.07.2003, 07.07.2003, 21.03.2009 and 02.06.2009 issued under Section 28 (4) of the Act, insofar as they pertain to the respective writ petitioners/ landowners are concerned, are hereby quashed. 13. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.