2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (NOIDA) has vehemently submitted that there was a huge delay of 22 years in preferring the appeals by the land owners, which ought not to have been condoned by the High...

1. Leave granted.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No. 379 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent no. 1...

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal No. 623/2007, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal...

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 3492/2022, by which, the High Court has released respondent...

1. Though served, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.

1. The delay of 11 days in refiling the writ petition stands condoned.

1. Leave granted.

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do not think that the legacy issue requires detailed elucidation.

1. We do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.