basis that the bona fides of the parties is above board and to permit acquisition proceedings to reach finality is not welcome and as regards which, this court cannot be a mute witness to the disputed transaction as between the parties. The fact that the respondent no.4 has offered the entire lands purchased by him to be acquired voluntarily and thereafter funnelled back to respondent no.3, of which he is the Managing Director, which according to the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners is itself a suspicious transaction, which should have put the KIADB on guard as to the bona fides of the said respondent, is not a circumstance that can be readily accepted. But given the attendant circumstances, it is certainly an aspect to be addressed. In that view of the matter, if in order, the notification under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act to be sustained as being without any blemish, it would be necessary for the KIADB to be aware of the other circumstance which may or which may not have been brought to its attention, especially, in the light of the circumstance that the KIADB itself disputes the lease deed under which the third respondent is now claiming. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the matter be remitted for a fresh consideration, after affording an opportunity to the parties to have their say notwithstanding the long lapse of time and even
