1 ‘.4z 0 V m I. S.- — I. —4 .3 . C’ M -q ‘V b1 fl r • t — .. . •1 . c__ .- . — :: •:. I— :, . .. . 0 S -- . S V — •1 ‘I 4 I . 0 55% I ‘ 2 5’- 3 7) “ —- z - —5’ 5;) 5% • C . — S-v • •t - .5 - - I - ‘L :5 - ‘4 -S - r C L ‘I .5 -1 — r — — •-- ‘.. : ‘;: -: S. - : I. 0 —. I—. . S-I. — ‘S — . S SI £ (S. I - • —. •.. v - IS -7 a - 4V — II p ‘S — I. CL cv’ .3 SI V S 4e 5. The petitioner contends that the second respondent Corporation had decided not to proceed with the acquisition of her property. It is stated that no final notification has been issued in regard to the acquisition of the said property. Second respondent should know whether there is any proposal for acquisition of property in question or not and whether it proposes to finaiise the acquisitions. If the corporation wanted to acquire the petitionei 4 property, for any public purpose, it was for the corporation to verify whether there was any acquisition in itq favour and take suitable action while granting the licence. Instead of it, the corporation granted the licence and sanctioned the plan. Having sanctioned the plan, the corporation could not have cancelled the licence on the ground that there was a proposal for acquisition of the said property. None of the respondents including the second respondent has tiled objections traversing the petiti3rl oi vyqta Hence, the Court will have to proceed on tha basis that there’ is no V acquisition. 6. In view of above, this petition is allowed and nnexure Q’ is quashed. This will not come in the way of corporation acquiring the property, if it required for any public purpose, in accordance with law, Sri Nagarajappa, learned A6, is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. Sd/ JUDGE *pjk/ujk