1 Reserved on : 24.09.2025 Pronounced on : 31.10.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.10575 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) C/W WRIT PETITION No.8678 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) IN WRIT PETITION No.10575 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI JAYARAM P., S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MURALI BABU M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES 2 M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU – 1. 2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KIADB (BMICP) AND BENGALURU RURAL NO.14/3, CFC BUILDING MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 1. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 443 SPQ 2009 BANGALORE DTD 09.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT 1966 ANNEXURE-B ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER’S LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 0-23 GUNTAS IN SY NO. 67 SITUATED AT BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. IN WRIT PETITION No.8678 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRI RAJANNA P., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O PATALAPPA, NO.42, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, KUNDANA HOBLI, BYRADENAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDAN GOWDA PATIL, ADVOCATE) 3 AND: 1 . GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) 3 . THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - II KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, SHANTIGRAHA BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4) 4 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 BEARING NO. CI 116 S.PQ(E) 2022 DATED 25.05.2022 ISSUED BY R-2 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER UNDATED BEARING NO. BENGALURU / VIBHUSWAA-2/5088/2021- 22 PASSED UNDER SECTION 28(3) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 ISSUED BY THE R-4 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A1; DIRECT THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 28(3) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER Both these petitions, call in question, the notification issued by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’ for short) under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), insofar as the land of these petitioners, as described in the respective petitions. 5 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri Murali Babu M., in W.P.No.10575 of 2025 and Sri Chandan Gowda Patil in W.P.No.8678 of 2025; Smt Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and Sri B B Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents/KIADB. 3. The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 52/1 respectively of Byradenahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District as observed hereinabove. The lands that have come to the hands of the petitioners have been narrated in the petition, which would not be necessary for consideration of the issue in the lis. The lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 52/1 of Byradenahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District becomes the subject matter of acquisition from the hands of the Board by issuance of a notification under Section 28(1) of the Act. Though the notification was issued in the year 2010, the final notification in terms of Section 28(4) of the Act is issued in the year 2022. Therefore, the averment in the petitions is that the Board has issued the final notification only after 12 years and hence, it is in violation of the 6 statute, thus resulting in vitiation of the entire acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are on different scores of challenge as well, that the petitioners’ lands are fully developed, fertile and have fruit bearing trees in those lands and this is the only source of livelihood to the family of the petitioners and therefore, seek to challenge the acquisition process by the Board. 4. The learned counsel Sri Murali Babu M., appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.10575 of 2025 would vehemently contend that the land of the petitioner is being utilized for the purpose of growing grapes and other fruits and in such circumstances, circular issued by the Government would come into operation, where such lands are exempted. This is considered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.39 of 2024 is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his further contention that certain lands in terms of the circular are given up by the Board, and therefore, the land of the petitioner also should merit dropping from acquisition. 5. The learned counsel Sri Chandan Gowda Patil, appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.8678 of 2025 would also contend that 7 though the petitioner has filed objections to the notice issued under Section 28(2) of the Act, it has not merited any consideration while issuing a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act. 6. On all the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for petitioners seeks quashment of the notification and consequently, retaining of the lands with the petitioners. 7. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri B B Patil representing the Board would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the lands no doubt in terms of the circular would be given up, only if it is not disturbing the contiguity. In the cases at hand, the learned counsel submits that the acquisition of the land of the brother of the petitioner adjacent to the land of the petitioner in W.P.10575 of 2025 was challenged and the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.3667 of 2023 and connected cases has rejected the claim, wherein the very same grounds had been projected and the said judgment has become final. In the light of the said judgment attaining finality and all these grounds being urged by the petitioner therein, it would cover the issue in the lis on all its fours. The 8 learned counsel would further contend that the circular no doubt is considered by the Division Bench. The circular is not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel would thus seek dismissal of the petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Murali Babu M., would join issue as a rejoinder submission contending that the case of the brother of the petitioner in W.P.10575 of 2025 is entirely different, as the land of the brother of the petitioner is at a distance of half a kilometer from the village limits, the lands are bearing survey numbers 63 and 64 while that of the petitioner’s is survey number 67. He would thus contend that the petitioner’s land is worthy of being dropped from acquisition. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. A notification comes to be issued by the Board under Section 28(1) on 9 09-06-2010. The notification is appended to the petition. The notification covers several survey numbers. Three such survey numbers are germane to be noticed viz., sy.nos.63, 64 and Sy.No.67 of Byradenahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. Pursuant to the issuance of the notice under Section 28(2) of the Act, proceedings were drawn for consideration of the objections of the petitioners filed under Section 28(3) of the Act. On consideration, it transpires that a final notification is issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, 12 years after the issuance of the preliminary notification. Sy.No.67, as averred in the statement of objections or in the map that is produced, is undoubtedly contiguous to the acquisition of the land. 11. Sy.No.63 and 64 belongs to the brother of the petitioner in W.P.No.10575 of 2025. The brother of the petitioner along with others had approached this Court calling in question the notification issued under Section 3(1) and 28(4) of the Act. The coordinate bench in W.P.No.3667 of 2023 and connected cases, considers the entire spectrum of the issue projected before it, and rejects the petitions by the following order: 10 “Since these writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the acquisition notifications dated 09.06.2010 and 25.05.2022 issued under Sections 3(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, (for short 'the Act') these matters were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The undisputed facts are that the impugned notifications were issued for acquisition of lands for formation of an industrial area at the hands of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The main contention of the petitioners, who are the land owners, is that the mandatory requirement of consideration of the objections filed by the land owners has not been compiled by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO'). It is contended that orders have been passed by the State Government contrary to the requirements of sub- section (3) of Section 28 of the Act. In this regard, attention of this Court is also drawn to two circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013, to contend that the State Government had issued directions that the KIADB shall not propose acquisition of fertile lands, garden lands, which have crops for atleast two previous years. It is contended that the petitioners herein have filed objections along with material to show that the lands in question are fertile lands where crops have been grown atleast two years prior to the issuance of the notification. In some of the objections it was brought to the notice of the SLAO that there are standing trees which would clearly indicate that the lands are fertile lands/garden lands and therefore in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Government the lands belonging to the petitioners herein should have been dropped from the acquisition proceedings. It was also contended that it is mandatory on the part of the SLAO to have personally inspected the lands in question to find out the truth of the contentions raised by the petitioners, ás to whether the lands are fertile lands etc. 11 3. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Anil Amencherla /vs./ The State of Karnataka and others - 2013 SCC OnLine KAR 6457, wherein it was held that the note or recommendation of the SLAO in terms of Section 28(3) should reflect the subjective satisfaction of the SLAO of having inspected the lands and his findings on the factual information. Further, the State Government is required to apply its mind and consider the factual information given by the SLAO along with the objections of the land owners and pass a reasoned order, as required under Section 28(3) of the Act. It is submitted on behalf of the land owners that this Court has upheld such contentions putforth by the land owners and quashed the acquisition notifications for non- compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 28(3)of the Act. Reliance is also placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in KIADB /vs./Dyavamma and another- 2022 SCC OnLine KAR 739, wherein it was held that the order passed by the State Government under Section 28(3) only contains the conclusion and has been passed in a cryptic and The decision of a learned single judge of this court was upheld while quashing such cavalier manner. acquisition notification. The learned counsels would add that the matter may be remanded back for fresh enquiry under Section 28(3) of the Act, as was done in the case of Dyavamma (supra), to afford an opportunity of hearing to the landlord having regard to the valid objections raised. 4. It was also contended that there has been inordinate delay in passing the final notification under Section 28(4). The preliminary notification was issued on 09.06.2010 for an extent of 2072 acres 24 guntas. Final notification under Section 28(4) was issued in respect of 867 acres 37 guntas on 25.05.2022. Learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that although there is no time limit prescribed for issuing final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, nevertheless, such declaration have to be issued within reasonable time. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on Shimoga Urban Development Authority /vs./ State of Karnataka and others ILR 2002 KAR 2078. Learned counsels submit that the Division Bench of this court has considered similar 12 provisions contained in the Karnataka Improvement of Boards Act, 1966 and the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, wherein no time limit was prescribed for issuance of final notification. However, having regard to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Chand & Others /vs./ Union of India and Others (1994) 1 SCC 44, it was held that it is a settled position of law that in a statute where for exercise of power no time limit is fixed, it has to be exercised within a time which can be held to be reasonable. The authorities are enjoined by the statute concerned, to perform the duties within a reasonable time and as such they are answerable to the court, why such duties have not been performed by them, which has caused injury to the claimants. The Supreme Court had held that where the compensation is pegged down to the date of preliminary notification and there is inordinate delay, the market rate as on the date of preliminary notification becomes a fraction of market rate prevailing at the time of passing of the award and taking of possession and that would be unjust to the land owners. 5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that in a recent decision of this Court in the case of Smt.C.N.Sharada and another /vs./ the State of Karnataka and Others and connected matters, in W.P.No.12128/2015 and connected matters, by order dated 22.09.2023, this Court has considered similar contentions and has dismissed such writ petitions filed at the hands of land owners. Learned Advocate General submits that more importantly some of the subsequent developments have to be taken note of which will have a bearing on the matter. Learned Advocate General submits that out of the entire extent of 867 acres 37 guntas, an extent of 300 acres of land was allotted to M/s. Foxconn Hon Hai Technology India Mega Development (P) Ltd., which is going to generate employment for nearly 50,000 persons. It is submitted that out of the entire extent of 300 acres, only 10 acres 23 guntas are the subject matter of this litigation. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the land owners 13 have accepted the compensation in respect of 290 acres and possession has been handed over to M/s.Foxconn. 6. The learned Advocate General would further draw the attention of this Court to a sketch In terms of reflecting the areas under litigation. Annexure-R2, filed along with the statement of objections, it was pointed out that there are only 3 pieces of property in Sy.No.56/3, 60/2 and 74/3, belonging to the petitioners and it is clear from the sketch that the three pieces of property form an integral part of the layout which is required to be handed over to M/s. Foxconn. Learned Advocate General submits that this Court should consider the fact that more than 95% of the acquired lands have been handed over to M/s.Foxconn and therefore whether it would be justiciable on the part of the petitioners to seek reconsideration of their objections at the hands of the Special Land Acquisition Officer? It is more than evident from the material available on record that even if the Special Land Acquisition Officer is required to reconsider the objections at the hands of the petitioners, it would be inevitable on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to reject such objections, since the lands in question form an integral part of the industrial area and if they are to be de- notified, for any reason, they would form small islands within the industrial area and therefore it would be impermissible to accept the contentions of the petitioners. 7. 7. The learned Advocate General would further submit that initially when the writ petitions were filed, there were about 15 petitioners voicing similar grievance insofar as the 300 acres now allotted to M/s. Foxconn, but, even during the course of these proceedings, all but three petitioners accepted the compensation package offered and have voluntarily withdrawn the petitions. The revised compensation package also offers employment to one of the family members of the land owner, depending on the Insofar as the remaining education qualification. extent of lands acquired, it is submitted that about 18 petitioners accepted the new compensation package and withdrew their respective writ petitions. The learned Advocate General would therefore submit that the grievance of the three writ petitioners cannot frustrate the development which is in public interest. In fact, it is submitted that of the three 14 petitioners, one has not even filed objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In respect of the other two petitioners, it is submitted that their objections have been considered and reasons have been assigned stating that it is necessary to acquire the lands, since they form an integral part of the industrial area. Finally it is submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash and others/vs/ The State of UP and others - (1998) 6 SCC 1, Courts should not permit upsetting the entire apple- cart of acquisition at the behest of few land owners and on the other hand, their grievance can be redressed by granting adequate compensation. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Advocate General for the respondent State and the learned counsels for the respondent - KIADB and perused the petition papers. 9. The fulcrum of the argument on behalf of the petitioner landlord is that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the objections raised by the land owners, subjectively, which is the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) & (3) of Section 28 of the Act, and having regard to the circulars issued by the State Government. However, as rightly pointed by the learned Advocate General, this Court in the case of Smt. C.N.Sharada (supra) has considered the effect of the two circulars issued by the State Government viz., circulars dated 3.3.2007 and 18.03.2013 and held that in the second circular dated 18.03.2013, a brief background is given stating that in the matter of issuance of the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, vast difference was found between the extent of lands notified in the preliminary notification when compared to the final notification. Lands were being dropped from the acquisition proceedings only on the ground that they were fertile agricultural or garden lands. In order to rectify the lacunae, a fresh circular dated 18.03.2013 was issued, while clarifying that although some of the lands in the notification which were classified as temple, burial grounds, school, playgrounds, industries, sick industries, garden lands, fertile agricultural lands are notified, 15 nevertheless, they shall not be dropped from the acquisition proceedings if it is found that they form an integral part of the layout and are necessary to maintain contiguity of the industrial area. Accepting that position, this court held that if the Special Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the objection with such observations, then it cannot be faulted on the ground that Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed cyclostyled orders, without application of mind. For immediate reference paragraph No.6 of the said order which reads as follows is extracted: "16. If the SLAO has rejected the objections with such observations, then it cannot be faulted on the ground that the SLAO has passed cyclostyled orders, without application of mind. The learned Advocate General is right in placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of N.Somashekar (supra), wherein it was held that no doubt, that the SLAO is required to consider each objection raised by a land owner or person interested, fairly and objectively, but then the proposition of law is subject to an all important caveat viz., that the objection must be one of substance and must be stated with sufficient clarity and supportive material. Where the objections are just for the sake of objections without any wholly substance or irrelevant or insufficient to outweigh the compulsions of compulsory acquisition meant to satisfy a public purpose, the failure to deal with or consider ad seriatum each objection raised would make no difference. In the same vein, if the SLAO has assigned similar reasons while rejecting the objections of the petitioners herein, while stating that although the lands may be fertile agricultural lands, they are required for maintaining the contiguity of the layout, no fault can be found in such reasoning. If 16 objections are similar, then naturally the reasons for rejection can also be similar." The case referred in N.Somashekar is a decision of a Division Bench in N.Somashekar and others /v./ State of Karnataka and Others, 1997 SCC OnLine Kar 653. 10. Having regard to the said legal position, the learned Advocate General has rightly pointed out to the factual aspects of this case and in the sketch furnished by the respondent State and the KIADB, it is clear that three pieces of property in Sy.Nos.56/3, 60/2 and 74/3 form an integral part of the layout now handed over to M/s. Foxconn and it would be impermissible to leave out the three pieces of land from acquisition. On the contrary, if the lands in question are left out of acquisition, they would form small islands within the layout, without access and surrounded by industrial area. Similar is the facts and circumstances insofar as the other petitioners and They formed an integral part of the their lands. industrial area and they cannot be left out of the acquisition. 11. Coming to the second limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, that there is an enormous delay of nearly 12 years between the preliminary notification and the final notification and therefore, the acquisition notifications should be quashed, this Court is of the opinion that having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra), this court should accept the submission of the learned Advocate General that at the instance of a minuscule percentage of land owners questioning the acquisition proceedings and in the light of the admitted facts that all other lands owners have accepted the compensation and many of them have withdrawn the writ petitions accepting the new compensation package, this Court cannot set aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground that there is a delay of nearly 12 years between the two notifications. In the case of Smt C.N.Sharada (supra) this Court accepted such contentions that it is neither advisable nor feasible to interfere with the acquisition of such large tracts of land when the occupants of 9/10th of the acquired lands have not thought it fit to challenge the acquisition proceedings and 17 the occupants of only 1/10th of the lands are agitating their grievance. It was held that court should not permit upsetting the entire apple cart of acquisition of 500 acres only at the behest of 1/10th of the land owners. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petitions. But, having regard to the fact that during the course of these proceedings, the state Government along with the KIADB came forward with fresh proposal of compensation package which included employment to the families of the land owners, the petitioners herein may also be offered such fresh compensation package and the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall not insist on payment of compensation in terms of the General Award. 13. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed. Pending IAs. if any stand disposed of. (Emphasis supplied) The coordinate bench considers every one of the submissions that were projected before it, which is identical to what is projected in the cases at hand. The coordinate bench, was considering inter alia, the lands in the same area. Survey numbers 63 and 64, lands of the brother of the petitioner, projecting the very same grounds that are projected in the subject petition, is answered by the coordinate bench. 18 12. In the light of the consideration threadbare of Sy.Nos.63 and 64 of the same village, which is adjacent to Sy.No.67 belonging to the petitioner, delving deep into the issue would not arise, as the petitions would undoubtedly meet its fate in the same manner in which the afore-quoted writ petitions met their fate, which was dismissal of the petitions. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner have placed heavy reliance upon the circular so issued by the State on 18-03-2013. The circular becomes necessary to be noticed. The circular reads as follows: “ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, «PÁ¸À ¸ËzsÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.03.2013 ಸಂೆ: ಐ 590 ಎಕೂ 2012 ಸುೋೆ ವಯ: ಕಾಟಕ ೈಾ ಾ ಪ"#ೇ$ಾ%ವೃ'( ಮಂಡ+,ಂದ ೈಾ ಾ ಉ#ೆ/ೕಶಾ12 ಜ4ೕನುಗಳನು8 ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕನಪ=ಸಲು ಅನುಸ ಸ@ೇಾದ Aಾನಗಳ ಬೆC. ******** ಕಾಟಕ ೈಾ ಾ ಪ"#ೇ$ಾ%ವೃ'( ಮಂಡ+ ವE,ಂದ ೈಾ ಾ ಉ#ೆ/ೕಶಾ12 / ಏಕ ಘಟಕ ಸಂHೕಣ Jೕಜೆಗ+ಾ2 ಜ4ೕನುಗಳನು8 19 ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕನಪ=ೊಳKLEದು/, ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಪ"ಕರಣಗಳNO ಸ Pಾ2 ಪ QೕNಸ#ೆRೕ ೆ.ಐ.ಎ.=.S.ಯು ಜ4ೕನುಗಳನು8 ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕನಪ=ೊಳKLEರುವTದು ಸಾರದ ಗಮನೆ1 ಬಂ'#ೆ. 1. ೆ.ಐ.ಎ.= PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 28/(1)gÀ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è zÉêÀ¸ÁÞ£À, ±Á¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ಸU$ಾನಗಳK ಮತು Wಾಸದ ಮೆಗಳK :ೇ ರುತWೆ. 2. XಾN ನYೆಯುEರುವ ಧ ೈಾ ೆಗಳK / [ೋಗಗ"ಸ\ ೈಾ ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳK Xೊಂ'ರುವ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳK :ೇ ರುತWೆ. 3. ಸ\+ೕಯ Jೕಜಾ ]ಾ"<ಾರಗಳK ವಸE ಉ#ೆ/ೕಶೆ1 ಅನು^ೕ'ಸಲ_`aರುವ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳK / ಸಾರದ ಭೂ ಬದಾವbೆೊಂ=ರುವ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳK / cಾO<ಾ ಗಳK ಭೂ ಪ ವತೆ dೕ=ರುವ ಪ"ಕರಣಗ+ೆ ಸಂಬಂ<ದ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳK :ೇ ರುತWೆ. 4. ೋಟಗಳK, ಫಲವಾದ ಜ4ೕನು Xಾಗೂ ವಷೆ1 2 @ೆgೆ @ೆgೆಯುವ ಜ4ೕಮಗಳK, ತ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳK :ೇ ರುತWೆ. ೆ.ಐ.ಎ.= ಾR/ ಕಲಂ 28(4)ರ= ಅಂEಮ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆಯನು8 ತPಾ ಸುWಾಗ iೕೆ Xೇ+ದ ಜ4ೕನಗಳನು8 Xೊರತುಪ=, ೆ.ಐ.ಎ.=. ಾR/ ಕಲಂ 4ರ= ಅ<ಸೂಚೆಯನು8 Xೊರ=ಸಾಗುE#ೆ. ಇದ ಂ#ಾ2 ]ಾ"ಥ4ಕ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆ ೕಣಕೂ1, ಅಂHಮ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆಯNOನ ೕಣಕೂ1 ವಾಸ ಉಂlಾಗುEರುವTದು ಸಾರದ ಗಮನೆ1 ಬಂ'ರುತ#ೆ. ಈ ನೂನೆಗಳನು8 ಸ ಪ=ಸಲು ಈ mಂ#ೆ 'ಾಂಕ: 03.03 2007ರಂದು Xೊರ=ಸಾದ ಸುೋೆ ¸ÀASÉÊ ¹ ಐ 151 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2007 F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ಅಂಶಗ+ೆ ಸಂಬಂ<ದಂೆ nಾಗ±À: oಾಪ=ಸಾ2#ೆ.; ೆ.ಐ.ಎ.=.S. ವE,ಂದ ೈಾ ಾ ಉ#ೆ/ೕಶೆ1 | Kಕ ಘಟಕ ಸಂHೕಣ Jೕಜೆಗ+ೆ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳನು8 ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕನಪ=ಸಲು ]ಾ"ಥ4ಕ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆಯನು8 ತPಾ ಸುವ ಸಂದಭದNO ಇನು8 ಮುಂ#ೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ Aಾನವನು8 ]ಾNಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂpಸಾ2#ೆ.. 20 1. ¥ÀæxÀ«ÄPÀ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆ ಪ":ಾವೆಯನು8 ದ(ಪ=ಸುವ ^ದಲು «±ÉñÀ ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕಾ<ಾ ಯವರು ಪ":ಾತ ಜ4ೕdನ iೕಲUಲrಣಗಳ ಬೆC ಸ\ಳ ಪ Qೕಲೆ ನYೆದ ನಂತರ ಸ\ಳ ತdಾ `ಪ_s ಸmತ ]ಾ"ಥ4ಕ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆ ಪ":ಾವೆಯನು8. ಸNOಸುವTದು Xಾಗೂ ಅಂEಮ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆ Xೊರ=ಸುವ ^ದಲು ಜಂ` ಅಳತ ಾಯವನು8 ಪt[ೈ, ನಂತರ ಅಂEಮ ಅ<ಸೂಚೆ ಪ":ಾವೆ ದ(ಪ=ಸುವTದು. 2. #ೇವ:ಾ\ನ, ಸU$ಾನ, $ಾೆ ಮತು ಆಟದ iೖ#ಾನ, Wಾಸದ ಮೆಗಳK | ವಸE ಪ"#ೇಶಗಳನು8 ಆಯಕ`aೆ ಧೆ1 ಉಂlಾಗದಂೆ :ಾಧWಾದಷುa ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕನ ಪ"H"R,ಂದ Xೊರತುಪ=ಸುವTದು. 3. XಾN ನYೆಯುEರುವ ಧ ೈಾ ೆಗಳK, [ೋಗಗ"ಸ\ ೈಾ ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಪ"#ೇಶಗಳನು8 ಆಯಕ`aೆ ಧೆ1 ಉಂlಾಗದಂೆ - :ಾಧWಾದಷುa ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕನ ಪ"H"R,ಂದ Xೊರತುಪ=ಸುವTದು. 4. ಆಯಕlೆaೆ ಧೆ1 ಉಂlಾಗದಂೆ ೋಟಗಳK, ಫಲವಾದ ಜ4ೕನು Xಾಗೂ ವಷೆ1 2 @ೆgೆ @ೆgೆಯುವ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳK, ತ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳನು8 ಭೂ:ಾ;<ೕನ ಪ"H"R,ಂದ Xೊರತುಪ=ಸುವTದು. 5. ಾ"ಮ[ಾbಾದ ಸರಹ'/dಂದ ಾ"ಮದ ಸುತಲೂ ಸರbೆಾ2 100 4ೕಟz Wಾಯ ಜ4ೕನುಗಳನು8 Xೊರತುಪ=ಸುವTದು. The afore-quoted circular, is in supercession of the circular of the year 2007. The circular, no doubt, directs dropping of lands from acquisition, but it is not a freefall, it is hedged with certain conditions. One of the conditions paramount it is, that the dropping of the land/s should not result in destruction of contiguity or should not affect the contiguity of the purpose for which the land is 21 acquired. In the case at hand, the land acquired is for the purpose of setting up an industry. When 95% of the acquisition is complete for the purpose of setting up an industry. What is not acquired now is the lands of the petitioner. If the entire pocket is an industry, it cannot be seen that at the center of the industry lies a farm land growing grapes. In the light of the land of the brother of the petitioner being acquired, which admittedly is adjacent and the said acquisition being questioned before this Court and the coordinate bench dismissing it, nothing further need be considered, as an extra ground in the case at hand. 14. The case before the coordinate bench supra was also concerning setting up of an industry, the cases at hand which forms the same notification of acquisition, are also for the purpose of setting up of an industry. In the light of the consideration threadbare by the coordinate bench and the applicability of the circular being restrictable to certain conditions depicted therein and the conditions becoming applicable to the cases at hand, there is no warrant of interference needed at the hands of this Court. As observed by the coordinate bench at paragraph 12 supra, the same 22 observation would become applicable to the petitioners in the cases at hand as well. 15. The petitions, with the observations paraphrased from the aforesaid petitions, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any subsisting, shall stand dissolved. Pending applications if any, also stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ