- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19693 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RENUKARADHYA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O SRI RENUKARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE R/O HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 206. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. S. AISHWARYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMICP) AND BENGALURU RURAL IST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023 DATED 21.03.2023 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 23.03.2023 AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023 DATED 20.02.2024 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 21.02.2024 AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS MEASURING 2 ACRES 22 GUNTAS IN SY NO.155/1A, 18 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.155/5 AND 31 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.155/6 OF HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Petitioner No.1 claiming to be owner of land measuring 18 guntas in Sy.No.155/5 and land measuring 31 guntas in Sy.No.155/6 and Petitioner No.2 claiming to be owner of land measuring 4 acres 0.8 anas in Sy.No.155/1A situated at Hulikunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, are before this Court seeking following relief: "Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Preliminary Notification bearing No.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023 dated 21.03.2023 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 23.03.2023 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1 and the Final Notification bearing No.CI 36 SPQ (E) 2023 dated 20.02.2024 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 21.02.2024 at Annexure-B issued by respondent No.1 in so far as the petitioners lands measuring 2 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.155/1A, 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/5 and 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/6 of Hulikunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, is concerned". 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the primary contention of the petitioners is that despite they submitting elaborate objections to the Preliminary Notification dated 21.03.2023 at Annexure-A setting forth the nature of land and agricultural activities being carried on, existence of trees, buildings and structures seeking exclusion of their lands - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 as per Annexure-E, respondent-SLAO has not considered the same. Learned counsel refers to the orders passed by respondent-SLAO under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1966) as seen at Annexure-G column 25, 30 and 31 and submits that there has been no application of mind by the respondent-SLAO to the contentions and substance of the objections which were put forth by the petitioners. She relies upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Malligamma and others Vs State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2013 Karnataka 4449 to buttress her submissions that the consideration of objections is not a mechanical process but requires examination with application of mind. She also submits that the Circular issued by the respondent-Government recommending exclusion of land as far as practicable which are being used for agricultural purposes. Thus she submits what emanates from the order under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 is lack of application of mind by the SLAO to the objections. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board submits that objections are - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 considered and respondent-SLAO has also taken note of existence of house and developments made thereon and only thereafter has excluded a portion measuring 1 acre 18.08 guntas as seen in column No.25 of the order passed under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966. Hence, he submits contention of non application of mind is not tenable. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 4. Learned AGA supplementing the submission made by the learned counsel for Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board submits that the order passed by respondent-SLAO under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 is after application of mind and considering relevant factors. That the report submitted by him is lawful and no fault can be found with the order of respondent-SLAO. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute that petitioners being owners of land referred to above and their names having been reflected in the Preliminary Notification and in the Final Notification as notified khathedars. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 7. Perusal of objections filed by the petitioners at Annexure-E would indicate that apart from specifically contending that the lands are being used for agricultural activities they have also given details of the existence of building and existence of trees, nature of trees and five active borewells which are existing in the land being used for agricultural purpose. In contrast the reasons assigned by the respondent-SLAO at column 25 of the order under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 in respect of Sy.No.155/1A read as under: 25. ಸಳ ಪ ೕಲ ೆ ಾಡಾೆ. ಆೇಪೆಯನು ಪ ೕಸಾತು. ಒಟು! 1-18.08 ಎಕ(ೆ )*+ೕಣ-ದ ಜ0ೕ1ನ2 ಎರಡು ಮಹ6 ಆ7.*.*. ಕಟ!ಡ, ಅ6:ೆ ;ೆಂಗು, *ಲ>7, ಇತ(ೇ vÉÆÃlUÁj:ೆÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ 1-18.8 JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ºÀAvÀzÀ°è 28(3)gÀr PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G½PÉ «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. 8. Similarly the reasons assigned at Column 30, 31 of the said order in respect of Sy.No.155/5 and 155/6 read as under: 30. ಸಳ ಪ ೕಲ ೆ ಾಡಾೆ. ಆೇಪೆಯನು ಪ ೕಸಾತು. ಈ ಜ0ೕನು ಉೆBೕ ತ Cೕಜ ೆDೆ ಅತEವಶEಕHಾ Iೇ:ಾರುವJದ ಂದ ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನ:ೆO ಇರುವ ಆೇಪೆಯನು PರಸO * ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನಪ6ಸಲು ಆೇ *ೆ. 31. ಸಳ ಪ ೕಲ ೆ ಾಡಾೆ. ಆೇಪೆಯನು ಪ ೕಸಾತು. ಈ ಜ0ೕನು ಉೆBೕ ತ Cೕಜ ೆDೆ ಅತEವಶEಕHಾ Iೇ:ಾರುವJದ ಂದ ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನ:ೆO ಇರುವ ಆೇಪೆಯನು PರಸO * ಭೂMಾ>Nೕನಪ6ಸಲು ಆೇ *ೆ. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order passed in W.P.Nos.24322-24340 of 2012-Malligamma and others Vs State of Karnataka and anr under similar circumstances at paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 has adverted to the procedure required to be adopted for consideration of objections which are as under: 10. My perusal of Section 28(3) order shows that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has just referred to the objections filed by the petitioners, but he has not considered them at all. The reasons given by him for rejecting the objections are (a) the acquisition is with the best intention and (b) the acquisition is in public interest. 11. The word 'consideration' is vividly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and another v. A.J. Rana and others reported in MANU/SC/0488/1971: AIR 1972 SC 591. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: 15. The words 'considers it necessary' postulate that the authority concerned has thought over the matter deliberately and with care and it has been found necessary as a result of such thinking to pass the order. The dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note of to think deliberately, bethink oneself to reflect' (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to Words and Phrases-Permanent Edn.: Vol. 8-A to 'consider' means to think with care. It is also mentioned that 'to consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question in sine qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents specified in the order. The essential requisite to the making of the order would be held to be non-existent. 12. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra), the collector is required to consider the land-owners plea against the acquisition of land. It has this to say in paragraph No. 40 of its judgment: 40. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. 9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid directions, it is clear that process of consideration of objections does not mean mechanical perusal of the record. It requires application of mind with conscious and meaningful reasoning either to accept - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 or reject any objections, which is manifestly absent in this matter. 10. Also appropriate to refer to circulars issued by respondent-State Government which are (1) Circular bearing No.CI 151 SPQ 2007 dated 03.03.2007 (2) Circular bearing No.CI 590 SPQ 2012 dated 18.03.2013. 11. Perusal of the aforesaid circulars indicate that the respondent-State itself has recommended exclusion of land which falls within the parameters set down in the aforesaid circulars. There is no reference to this aspect of the matter in the impugned order either. 12. For the aforesaid reasons and factual aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that there has been no application of mind to the statement of objections filed by the petitioners to the Preliminary Notification. Hence, the following: ORDER 1. Writ petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6787 WP No. 19693 of 2024 2. Order dated 15.11.2023 at Annexure-G passed under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 is quashed. Consequently Final Notification to the extent of lands belonging to the petitioners is quashed. Notwithstanding quashing of the order under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 as above respondent-SLAO shall reconsider the objections filed by the petitioners in respect of aforesaid lands. Petitioners are at liberty to file additional objections if any. The respondent-SLAO after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners shall proceed thereafter in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed within an outer limit of eight weeks thereafter. Since the petitioners are represented through their counsel they shall appear before the respondent-SLAO on 15.03.2025 at 3 P.M. without waiting for further notice in the matter. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE