1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.6708 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) C/W WRIT PETITION No.33550 OF 2024 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.255 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.293 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.515 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.671 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.672 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.1173 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.1280 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.1399 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.1405 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.3447 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.4055 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.4061 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.4737 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.5030 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.5148 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.5949 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) WRIT PETITION No.20573 OF 2025 (LA - KIADB) 2 IN WRIT PETITION No.6708 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI NARASIMHAN N., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O MANIKYA NO.63, LAKSHMI SAGAR LAYOUT MAHESHWAR TEMPLE ROAD MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 048. 2 . SRI SHEKAR M., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O MUNISWAMY NO.14, GANGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD 2ND CROSS, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU – 560 048. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MURALI N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 58 S PQ 2024 DATED 15/03/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY MEASURING 01 ACRE 09 GUNTAS SY NO. 205/2 OF S MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE. IN WRIT PETITION No.33550 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . PURAVANKARA LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-LEGAL JOHN S.VIJAYKUMAR. 2 . KALPAK REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4 NO.10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS POA HOLDER PURAVANKARA LIMITED JATIN UJJINI C.S. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER KIADB, NO.14/3 RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., 5 SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD. 15.03.2024 BEARING NO. CI 58 S PQ 2024 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER (ANNX-B). IN WRIT PETITION No.255 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . TRIGUNA MAYURI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 102, 1ST FLOOR, TRIGUNA ICON NO.27, AREKAMPANAHALLI HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 550 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI BHATTAGIRI RAGHUNATH REDDY S/O SRI BHATTAGIRI VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2 . SRI VENU B. M., S/O MR. MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING OF BILLAPURA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER TRIGUNA MAYURI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI BHATTAGIRI RAGHUNATH REDDY S/O SRI BHATTAGIRI VENKATA REDDY 6 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3 . SRI SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE SRI HUCHEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT HORALAGALLU KANAKAPUA TALUK BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER TRIGUNA MAYURI REALTY PRIATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI BHATTAGIRI RAGHUNATH REDDY S/O SRI BHATTAGIRI VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJESWARA P. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI VIKAS SOUDHA BENGLAURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 2 . THE KARNATKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUIVE OFFICER AND 7 EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 ISSUED BY R-1 UNDER SECTION 3(1) AND 1(3) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AT ANNX-N AND P IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS MEASURING 5 ACRES 29 GUNTAS IN SY.NO. 121 OF ADIGARAKALAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT IS CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.293 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI B.Y.NAGARAJU S/O LATE YELLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 8 RESIDENT OF BILLAPURA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 2 . SRI B.Y.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE YELLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3 . SMT. K.GEETHA KUMARI S/O B.Y.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.76, SRI NILAYA NEAR EXIDE GATE, BILLAPURA SARJAPURA, BENGALURU – 562 125. 4 . SRI M.KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5 . SMT. K.SUVARNA W/O SRI M.KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PETITIONERS NO. 4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.969/G, 3RD CROSS ‘A’ BLOCK, BENGALURU AECS LAYOUT, KUDLU GATE, SINGASANDRA BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 068. 6 . SRI B.D.VENKATESH S/O LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF BILLAPURA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 9 7 . SRI P.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE PEDDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 8 . SRI P.MURALESH S/O LATE PEDDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF BILLAPURA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 562 125. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJESWARA P. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. 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 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING 10 KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 1(3), AND 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AT ANNX-A TO C ISSUED BY R-1 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DTD. 02.12.2024 AT ANNX-D ISSUED BY R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS MENTIONED AT PARAGRAPH NO. 4 ARE CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.515 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . MOHAN H.C., S/O CHINNASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.259, SVS NILAYA BEHIND PANCHAYATH OFFICE HANDENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 562 125. 2 . RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O R.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 11 HANDENAHALLI BENGALURU - 562 125. 3 . N.KRISHNA REDDY S/O NARAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS NO.77, HANDENAHALLI BENGALURU - 562 125. 4 . H.K.SRINIVASA S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.77, HANDENAHALLI BENGALURU - 562 125. 5 . H.R.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.141/B, MADI MANE MADDURAMMA TEMPLE ROAD HANDENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 562 125. 6 . SMT. PREMA W/O. NANJUNDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS HANDENAHALLI BENGALURU - 562 125. 7 . SRI. H.V.DHASHARATHA REDDY S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.243, HANDENAHALLI BENGALURU - 562 125. 8 . SRI H.K.RAGHUNATH REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HANDENAHALLI 12 BENGALURU - 562 125. 9 . SRI VEERAPPA H. C., S/O CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS HANDENAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 10 . SRI PRABHAKAR REDDY S/O NARAYANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS HANDENAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 11 . SRI MANJUNATH REDDY S/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.38, HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALULK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 12 . SRI MALLA REDDY H. V., S/O VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 13 . SRI PILLA REDDY B., S/O BHADRAREDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 14 . SRI H.P MURALI S/O B.PILLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.89, HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 13 15 . SRI VENUGOPAL H. K., S/O KRISHNAREDDY H. V., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO. 183, NAGAVISHNU KRUPA NILAYA NEAR BUS STOP, HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 16 . SRI H.R.NANJUNDA REDDY S/O RAMASWAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.1, HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 17 . SRI M.VENKATASWAMI REDDY S/O MUNISWAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 18 . SRI NAGESH H. G., S/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.292, HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 19 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 20 . SRI V.GOPALA REDDY S/O VIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O NO.270, HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 14 21 . SRI H.V.RAMESH REDDY S/O VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO.V419, NAMBIAR BELLAZIA NARAYANAGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 099. 22 . SRI H.S.MANJUNATH S/O K.SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.36, SARJAPURA ROAD HANDENAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 23 . SRI NAGARAJA H. S., S/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O NO.36, HANDENAHALLI KOTAGANAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 24 . SRI MUNIREDDY S/O KONDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. 25 . VEERAPPA REDDY S/O THIMMARAYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O NO.105/2, HANDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA 15 BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE STATE OF KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 5 . THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE LALBAGH, BENGALURU - 560 004. 6 . THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001. 7 . THE CHAIRMAN/MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU - 560 001. 8 . THE SECRETARY 16 DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND TANKS/LAKES STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 9 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 001. 10 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 11 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL – 562 125 BENGALURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5, R8, R9 AND R11; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 R/W 48A AND 51A(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO NOTIFICATION TO ACQUIRE LANDS WITH KIAD ACT IN THE VILLAGE HANDENAHALLI, SOLLEPURA, MUTHANALLUR AMANIKERE OF SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT IN CI 59-SPQ 2024 DATED 15/3/2024; QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.CI59SPQ2024 DATED 15/03/2024 UNDER 28(1), T ANNEXURE-E1 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION NO. CI59SPQ2024 DATED 03/10/2024 UNDER 28(4) AT ANNEXURE-G AND NOTIFICATION DATED 13/12/2024 UNDER SEC.28(6) OF KIADB ACT, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-2, AND RESPONDENT- 10, CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS 17 ISSUED IS ARBITRARY, AGAINST THE POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENTS AND DECISIONS RENDERED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN THE MATTER OF ACQUIRING FERTILE AGRICULTURE LANDS FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES. IN WRIT PETITION No.671 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . ABHIGNA CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT SY.NO.19/27 7TH CROSS, GREEN DOMAIN LAYOUT KUNDANAHALLI, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU - 560 037 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI MUCHALA BHASKAR REDDY S/O SRI KRISHNA REDDY M., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2 . SMT. C.INDIRAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT S MEDAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 107. 3 . SRI C.ARUNA KUMAR S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT S MEDAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. 4 . SRI ANIL KUMAR A., S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE 18 ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 107 REPRESENTED BY ITS G.P.A HOLDER SRI MUCHALA BHASKAR REDDY. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJESWARA P. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI VIKAS 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 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IV AND V FLOORS EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS 19 (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DATED 15.03.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 1(3) AND 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AT ANNEXURES-A TO C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DATED 02.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND MEASURING 2 ACRES 03 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.43/1 OF S. MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT ARE CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.672 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ABHIGNA CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT SY. NO. 19/27 7TH CROSS, GREEN DOMAIN LAYOUT KUNDANAHALLI, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU – 560 037. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI MUCHALA BHASKAR REDDY S/O SRI KRISHNA REDDY M., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESWARA P. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI 20 VIKAS 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 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IV AND V FLOORS EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DATED 15.03.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 1(3) AND 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AT ANNEXURES-A TO C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DATED 02.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO 21 FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS MEASURING 1 ACRES 19 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.17 AND LAND MEASURING 00.08.08 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.202 OF S. MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT ARE CONCERNED. INN WRIT PETITION No.1173 OF 2025 BETWEEN: H.N.RAVINDRA REDDY S/O LATE NUNJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT HANDENAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK – 562 125. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VARADARAJAN M. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KIADB HEAD OFFICE NO.4, 4TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUT AND GUIDES BUILDING NO.39, 4TH FLOOR PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD. 03.10.2024 BEARING NO. CI 59 SPQ 2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIADB ACT 1996 (ANNX-A) AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.1280 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI MOHAN S/O PAPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.9 BIDARAGUPPE POST TYAVAKANAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU – 562 107. 2 . SRI M.N.BABU S/O NARAYANAREDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDENT OF S.MEDAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAGUPPE POST, ANEKAL TALUK SARJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 562 107. 3 . SRI B.JAGADEESHA S/O T.N.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 23 4 . SRI VISHWANATH B., S/O T.N.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5 . SRI MAHADESH B., S/O T.N.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.24 ATTIBELE SARJAPURA ROAD TYAVAKANAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU – 562 107. 6 . SRI VENKATA REDDY S/O V.JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 7 . SMT. GEETHA C., W/O VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PETITIONERS NO. 6 AND 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF S. MEDAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAGUPPE POST ATTIBELE-SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 562 107. ... PETITIONERS (BY 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 24 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 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 1(3) AND 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AT ANNX-A TO C ISSUED BY R-1 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DTD. 02.12.2024 AT 25 ANNX-D ISSUED BY R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS MENTIONED AT PARAGRAPH NO.4 ARE CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.1399 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. B.C.AMARNATH S/O LATE MR. CHIKKAMUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 177, OPPOSITE TO SBI BANK 14TH CROSS, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 102. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI AJIT P. B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR 49 KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2 KIADB, 1ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 010. 3 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR RP BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS 26 (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 15.03.2024 VIDE ANNX-F BEARING NO. (¹L 59 J¸ï ¦ PÀÆå 2024) AND NOTIFICATION DTD. 03.10.2024 VIDE ANNX-A BEARING NO. ¹L 59 J¸ï ¦ PÀÆå 2024 ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER BEARING SY.NO. 83/1, MEASURING 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS, SY.NO. 84/1, MEASURING 2 ACRE 3 GUNTAS, SY.NO. 85, MEASURING 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS, SY.NO. 86/1 MEASURING 26 GUNTAS SY.NO. 86/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 21 GUNTAS AND SY.NO. 87/4, MEASURING 19 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT SOLLEPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT IS CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.1405 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI YALLAREDDY S/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS 2 . SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 3 . SRI SURESH H. K., S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4 . SRI MADHUSUDHAN S/O N.PILLAREDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 27 5 . SRI RAJENDRA REDDY S/O CHANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 6 . SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT HANDENAHALLI, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 125. 7 . SRI RAM BABU SRINIVAS S/O R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.205, CHETANA MAPLE HADO SIDDAPURA SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 035. 8 . SMT. H.R.SHWETHA W/O GURUMURTHY K., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL KOMMASANDRA, DOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL, BENGALURU – 562 125. 9 . SRI KIRAN DASAPPA S/O K.L.DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.313, ‘HANUMAN NILAYA’ SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD DODDAKANNALLI, CARMELRAM POST BENGALURU – 560 035. 10 . SMT. CHAITRA H. V., D/O VENKATESH REDDY G. V., 28 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.237, 2ND CROSS TEACHERS COLONY CHANDAPURA ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 560 099. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, STATE OF KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 5 . THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE LALBAGH, BENGALURU – 560 004. 29 6 . THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) KHANIJA BHAVANA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 7 . THE CHAIRMAN/ MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU – 560 001. 8 . THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND TANKS/LAKES STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 9 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 001. 10 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 11 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT PIN – 562 106. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5, R8, R9 AND R11; SRI LOKESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R10) 30 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO NOTIFICATION TO ACQUIRE LANDS WITH KIADB ACT IN THE VILLAGE, HANDENAHALLI SOLLEPURA, MUTHANALLUR AMANIKERE OF SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT IN CI 59-SPQ 2024 DTD. 15.03.2024; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO. CI-59-SPQ-2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 AT ANNX-E NOTIFICATION NO. CI 59-SPQ 21024 DTD. 03.10.2024 AT ANNX-H AND NOTICE NO. KIADB/BNG/NAGARA/BHUSWA/2024-25 DTD. 13.02.2024 AT ANNX-M1 AND M2 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED ONLY, CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED IS ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES/ POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENTS. IN WRIT PETITION No.3447 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI T.SAMPANGI S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.27/1, S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU - 562 107. 2 . SMT. R.RATHNAMMA W/O ASHOK REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.30, S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU - 562 107. 3 . SRI Y.KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE YALLAREDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.73, S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST 31 BENGALURU - 562 107. 4 . SRI Y.NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE YALLAREDDY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.35, S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU - 562 107. 5 . SRI M.S.SRINIVAS S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT S.MEDIHALLI, BIDARAGUPPE POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. 6 . SRI P.ERA REDDY S/O PILLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.54, S.MEDAHALLI SARJAPURA ROAD, ANEKAL BENGALURU - 562 107. 7 . SMT. T.RATHNAMMA W/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. 8 . SRI KRISHNA REDDY S/O GULLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST ANEKAL TALU BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. 9 . SRI S.RAMASWAMY REDDY 32 S/O LATE SIDDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.56/1, S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. 10 . SRI KRISHNA REDDY S/O CHWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT S.MEDIHALLI, BIDARAGUPPE POST ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. 11 . SRI KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT VTC-S-MEDIHALLI PO BIDARAGUPPE, SUB DISTRICT ANEKAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. 12 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE RAMASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT 1ST STREET, S.MEDIHALLI BENGALURU - 562 107. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF TEXTILE AND COMMERCE UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 33 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, STATE OF KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 5 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 6 . THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE STATE OF KARNATAKA LALBAGH, BENGALURU - 560 004. 7 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND TANKS/LAKES, STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 8 . THE CHAIRMAN/MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU - 560 001. 34 9 . THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001. 10 . THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY CENTRAL SILK BOARD BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 076. 11 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009. 12 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU. 13 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT PIN - 562 106. 14 . M.SHIVAKUMAR THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-II KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) PALACE ROAD, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 15 MR. TEJAS KUMAR SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-II KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) PALACE ROAD, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS 35 (BY SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1; SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R2, TO R7, R11 TO R13; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND R15; SRI AJAY J.NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R14; NOTICE TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05/02/2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO NOTIFICATION TO ACQUIRE LANDS WITH KIADB ACT IN THE VILLAGE S.MEDAHALLI OF SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT IN CI 58-SPQ 2024 DATED 15/3/2024; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SEC. 28(1) VIDE NO. CI-58-SPQ-2024 DATED 15/3/2024 AT ANNEXURE-F, AND NOTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 28(4) VIDE NO.CI 58-SPQ 2024 DATED 2/12/2024 AT ANNEXURE-G AND NOTICE NO. BENGALURU/VIBHUSWAHA/2/243/2023-24 AND NOTICE NO. BENGALURU/VIBHUSWAHA/2/270/2023-24 DATED 6/5/2024 AT ANNEXURE-K1 TO K14, CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. IN WRIT PETITION No.4055 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI G.RAJANNA S/O GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.106, NEAR EXIDE GATE THYVAKANAHALLI VILLAGE TYAVAKANAHALLI, BIDARAGUPPE ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 107. 2 . SRI JAYARAMA REDDY S/O BEERA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 36 R/AT NO.46/4, NEW JANATA COLONY S.MEDIHALLI, BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU - 562 107. 3 . GOVINDA REDDY S/O CHINNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.42/3, NEAR FLOUR MILL S.MEDIHALLI, BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU - 562 107. 4 . SRI GOPALACHARY S/O RAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU - 562 107. 5 . SRI MUNIKRISHNA S/O KAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.54, S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. 6 . SRI CHINNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O S.MEDAHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST, ANEKAL BENGALURU - 562 107. 7 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.51, S.MEDIHALLI BIDARAGUPPE POST BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. ... PETITIONERS 37 (BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE STATE OF KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, VIKHASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 5 . THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE STATE OF KARNATAKA LALBAGH, BENGALURU - 560 004. 6 . THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB), KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001. 38 7 . THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 076. 8 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 9 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 560 001. 10 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT PIN: 562 106. 11 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-II KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB), PALACE ROAD BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5, AND R8,TO R10; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R11) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO NOTIFICATION TO ACQUIRE LANDS WITH KIADB ACT IN THE VILLAGE S-MEDAHALLI OF SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT IN CI 58-SPQ 2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 (ANNX-E1); QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SEC. 28(1) VIDE NO.CI-58-SPQ- 2024 DATED 15/3/2024 AT ANNEXURE-E1, AND NOTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 28(4) VIDE NO.CI 58-SPQ 2024 DATED 02/12/2024 AT ANNEXURE-E2 AND NOTICE NO.BENGALURU/ 39 VIBHUSWAHA/2/270/2023-24 DATED 6/5/2024 AT ANNEXURE-E3, CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. IN WRIT PETITION No.4061 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI PULLANKAVUMKAL CHACKO CHACKO SON OF MR. PULLANKAVUMKAL CHACKO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT PULICKALLU P.O. KARICKATTOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. JOSEPH VARGHESE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI TAJI GEORGE, 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 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 40 3 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 1(3) AND 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AT ANNX-A TO C ISSUED BY R-1 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 DTD. 02.12.2024 AT ANNX-D ISSUED BY R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS MENTIONED AT PARAGRAPH NO.3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.4737 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI PILLAPPA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 41 2 . SMT. MUNIKAVERAMMA W/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 3 . SRI Y.GANESH S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4 . SRI SRINIVASA REDDY M., S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF S.MEDAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 107 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, STATE OF KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA 42 BENGALURU - 560 001. 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 5 . THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE LALBAGH, BENGALURU - 560 004. 6 . THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001. 7 . THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND TANKS/LAKES STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 8 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 001. 9 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-II KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB), PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 10 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT PIN: 562 106. 43 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5, R8, R9 AND R11; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 R/W 48A AND 51A(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ACQUIRE LANDS WITH KIADB ACT IN THE VILLAGE HANDENAHALLI SOLLEPURA, MUTHANALLUR AMANIKERE OF SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT IN CI 58-SPQ 2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 AT ANNX-D1; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO. CI-58-SPQ-2024 DTD. 15.03.2024 AT ANNX-D1 NOTIFICATION NO. CI 58-SPQ 2024 DTD. 02.12.2024 AT ANNX-D2 AND NOTICE NO. BENGALURU/VI-BHUSWA- 2/270/2023-24 DTD. 06.05.2024 AT ANNX-E1 TO E3 RESPECTIVELY, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER LANDS OF S.MEDAHALLI CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED IS ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES / POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENTS. IN WRIT PETITION No.5030 OF 2025 BETWEEN: CONFIDENT PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO. 6, LANGFORD TOWN HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI T.K.SUNDARAM ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE) 44 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD KHENI BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 02.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 (ANNX-AC) IN SO FAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS LAND; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 15.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 (ANNX-Q) IN SO FAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS LAND. IN WRIT PETITION No.5148 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . CENTURIONS HOUSING AND 45 CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 33 AND 35 (PLOT NO. 23 AND 24) SOUTH BEACH AVENUE, MRC NAGAR RAJA ANNAMALAIPURUAM CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 028 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR D.S. PATIL. 2 . SRI SAI SHELTERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 46, 7TH MAIN, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 560 022 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MADHUSUDHAN REDDY. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 46 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 15, 2024 BEARING NO. CI 59 S PQ 2024 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER (ANNX-B). IN WRIT PETITION No.5949 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PURAVANKARA LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE LEGAL SHREYA V.K.JAIN. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) 47 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMNET BOARD NO. 14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NO. 14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 15, 2024 BEARING NO.CI 58 SPQ 2024 ISSUING BY R1 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE B). 48 IN WRIT PETITION No.20573 OF 2025 BETWEEN: FERNS ESTATES AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. ERROL FERNANDES REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. JASON JOSEPH FERNANDES S/O MR. ERROL FERNANDES AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NO.95, AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD DOMLUR, BENGALURU - 560 071. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIVEK ANAND ANTHONY BRITTO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS 49 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM CHAIRMAN. 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 15, 2024 BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 ISSUED BY R1 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-F); QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED DECEMBER 02, 2024 BEARING NO. CI 58 SPQ 2024 ISSUED BY R1 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-J). THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 50 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The conglomeration of these cases, call in question a preliminary notification dated 15-03-2024, issued by respondent No.2 - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) and a final notification issued thereon, on 02-12-2024. The extent of land; ownership and the details of the owners are all averred in the respective petitions. 2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 2.1. The petitioners in the cases at hand claim to be absolute owners and in complete possession of lands described in the schedules to the respective petitions. For the sake of convenience, I have felt it appropriate to notice the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.33550 of 2024 which are similar in other petitions. The 1st petitioner is Puravankara Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short). It claims to be in possession of lands totally measuring 32 acres 04 guntas in Sy.Nos. 110/2 to 4; 120/1 to 3; 207/1 to 4 and several other parcels of land at Medahalli and 51 Adigarakallahalli Villages, SarjapuraHobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The Company is said to have secured conversion of lands from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes/for residential use under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on various dates ranging from 04-01-2014 to 27-10-2023. The aforesaid various parcels of lands were purchased for the purpose of development to form a residential lay-out. Thus, the purchase and conversion were over in 10 years. In the interregnum between 24-11-2021 and 12-12-2023 it appears the Company enters into a Joint Development Agreement with petitioner No.2 covering certain area of lands. The details of lands that are subject matter of Joint Development Agreement are appended to the petitions. Therefore, the lands that the petitioners claim to be in their possession are lands converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes/ residential. It appears that when the petitioner had reason to believe that the Board would acquire the said properties, communicated to the Board seeking information as to whether the lands that the petitioners own were part of any acquisition proceedings. Communications galore between the two which culminated that it was not part of acquisition proceedings. The 52 Company is said to have submitted a development plan to the Satellite Town Ring Road Authority (‘STRRA’ for short) to develop a residential lay-out on 22-11-2023. No objection certificates were also sought from the Grama Panchayath for water supply and BESCOM for supply of electricity. This was the position of the land belonging to the Company as on 14-02-2024. 2.2. On 16-02-2024 the Board commences acquisition proceedings. The Development Officer of the Board and the Special Land Acquisition Officer together conduct a spot inspection in connection with acquisition of 600 acres of land for formation of an industrial area. According to the spot inspection, the entire extent of land was not developed and mainly consisted of dry lands. There was no development activity in the said lands and the same were suitable for formation of industrial area in terms of connectivity and their character. The said report is said to have been placed before the Board and the Board resolves in its meeting held on 20.02.2024 that there is immense demand for industrial lands and various industries and entrepreneurs in the said area were ready to accept the proposal for acquisition of 600 acres of lands in various villages. 53 Thus, emerges a preliminary notification on 15-03-2024 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) for acquisition of various lands including the schedule properties in all these petitions. Individual notices were then issued under Section 28(2) of the Act on 06-05-2024. Pending replies/objections to the individual notices, spot inspection takes place for acquiring another 800 acres of land for the purpose of setting up an integrated industrial area. Public notifications were issued with regard to the said additional acquisition. The petitioners in all these cases file their objections between 16-07-2024 and 26-09-2024 to the preliminary notification so issued and individual notices so sent as obtaining under Section 28(1) and 28(2) of the Act. On 09-10-2024 the Board passes orders under Section 28(3) of the Act rejecting all the objections of the petitioners by holding that the lands were essential for industrial purposes and appropriate compensation would be awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Thereafter on 02-12-2024 comes the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act. Challenging the said final notification, these petitions are preferred on 07-12-2024 and on subsequent dates. 54 3. Heard Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel along with Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.33550/2024, 5148/2025, 5949/2025, Sri Murali N., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6708/2025, Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.515/2025, 1405/2025, 3447/2025, 4055/2025, 4737/2025, , Sri Taji George, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4061/2025, Sri Varadarajan M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1173/2025, Sri Rajeswara P.N., learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.255/2025, 293/2025, 671/2025, 672/2025, 1280/2025, Sri Ajith P.B., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1399/2025, Sri Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5030/2025, Sri Vivek Anand Anthony Britto, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.20573/2025, Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.3447/2025, Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 in all the petitions except in W.P.No.3447/2025, wherein, he appears for respondent Nos.2 to 7, 11 to 13; in W.P.No.1405/2025, he appears for respondent Nos.1 55 to 5, 8, 9 and 11 and Sri K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General along with Sri H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in all the petitions except in W.P.No.3447/2025, wherein appears for respondent Nos.9 and 15; in W.P.No.1405/2025, appears for respondent Nos.6 and 10, Sri Lokesha K., learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel for respondent No.14 in W.P.No.3447/2025. 4.1. Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel spearheading the submissions in all these cases for the petitioners, would seek to contend that respondent No.2 – Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) has indulged in brazen exercise of power in several aspects of acquisition and has behaved as acquisition in the colonial era. Learned senior counsel further submits that two circulars are issued by the State Government one on 03-03-2007 and another on 18-03-2013. The first circular mandates that the lands converted from agricultural to non-agricultural ought to be excluded when the lands are acquired for industrial purposes and the other circular 56 mandates that the residential land should also be excluded from such acquisition. 4.2. He would submit that the Revised Master Plan 2031 of the Anekal Local Planning Area, where the properties of the petitioners are situated, is a residential area, which is shown as yellow zone in the said plan. The petitioners are said to have purchased several parcels of land for development of residential layout and purchases have been made for the last six years. Lands have been converted for non-agricultural purpose and the conversion order expressly records that the said conversion is for residential purpose. The STRRA has by an order dated 16-03-2024 granted an approval for residential layout under Section 17(2-A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 on an application made by the petitioner and provisional plan is also in place. He would submit that the preliminary notification issued by the Board suffers from blatant non-application of mind as the petitioners have already formed 510 residential plots, out of which 422 plots have agreements of sale being entered into between the parties and 70% of the homebuyers have availed loans from various banks. He 57 would submit that petitioners have made huge investments for the formation of the layout and are ready to execute the project. 4.3. Learned senior counsel further submits that the purported notice under Section 28(3) of the Act is said to have been issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB on 06-05-2024. The notice indicates 30 days time to file objections and hearing the stakeholders was scheduled on 22-05-2024 even before the completion of expiry of 30 days from the date of notice. He would submit that the petitioners were never aware of the preliminary notification and become aware only on 25-06-2024. The SLAO has by a perfunctory enquiry conducted on 22-05-2024, has rejected all the objections filed by the stakeholders. He would submit that this would be a classic case where the entire acquisition proceedings is in vitiation on the score of non-consideration of the objections and non-application of mind as the orders passed by the SLAO are cyclostyled orders. 4.4. On the aforesaid facts, the learned senior counsel projects that the acquisition proceedings lack procedural fairness and on the said issue seeks to place reliance upon plethora of 58 judgments to buttress his submission, all of which would bear consideration in the course of the order. He would contend that the acquisition proceedings are bad in procedure as it is contravention of the circulars issued by the State. The acquisition is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The acquisition proceedings must be obliterated on account of vagueness. 5. Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioners particularly, the landowners who are agriculturists would toe the lines of the learned senior counsel as observed hereinabove and would amplify the alleged illegality of the Board in not following the circulars issued by the State. According to the learned counsel, the action of the SLAO is in complete violation of law and would reiterate the submissions of the learned senior counsel that the objections of the petitioners are not considered by the SLAO and the final notification would undoubtedly be contrary to law. Perusal of the record would clearly indicate that the orders passed are all cyclostyled orders rejecting the objections of the petitioners. He would seek quashment of the acquisition proceedings on the sole 59 score that the petitioners are eking out their livelihood in the farms that they have constructed and are growing grapes or pomegranate as the case would be. He would in all other aspects, adopt the submissions of the learned senior counsel. 6. Sri Vivek Anand Anthony Britto, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27573/2025 would submit that the petitioner had purchased several packets of land totalling 6 acres and 34 guntas and the lands belonging to the petitioner are all contiguous and adjacent to each other. The acquisition notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Act seeking to acquire only a part of the lands owned by the petitioner, are not contiguous and they are at various places. This leaves the petitioner with few parcels of land here and there loosing complete contiguity. He would submit that either all the lands should be acquired or all the lands should be left over or acquisition should be in uniformity. He therefore submits that the entire acquisition is non-application of mind. With regard to the other submissions, he would toe the lines of Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in respective petitions. 60 7. Sri M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1173/2025 would submit that no specific purpose is stated in the impugned notification justifying the acquisition. Adequate opportunity to submit on the objections so filed is not afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner in his objections to the preliminary notification has clearly mentioned that the construction he has raised on the land is to an area of 50 ft. x 80 ft., which is in final stage, like paint job or otherwise. He would submit that the land is for the purpose of residential and come under yellow zone as declared by the Planning Authority. For remaining submissions, he would toe the lines of Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in respective petitions. 8. Sri Murali N., learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.6708/2025 would submit that the lands of the petitioner have been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural in terms of the official memorandum and the petitioner have purchased the said land in terms of the registered sale deed. The petitioners have filed their objections to drop the land from acquisition, the same is 61 not considered by issuing the final notification is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s land is abutting the road. On all these grounds, the learned counsel would seek quashment of the proceedings. Insofar as the common grounds urged, would toe the lines of Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in respective petitions. 9. Per contra, learned Advocate General representing the respondents – Board would refute every one of the submissions, contending that it is no law that in acquisition of lands for huge magnitude, every land owners should be heard and every objection of the petitioners / stakeholders should be considered. The SLAO by his proceedings on 28-03-2025 has considered each of the aspects and the objections of each of the land owners and has tabulated them and rejected or accepted, as the case would be. The rejection would naturally lead to issuance of final notification. He would defend the action of the second respondent in contending that the acquisition is for the purpose of setting up an industry and what industry would come up would not bear in the acquisition 62 proceedings. It is his submission that the consideration of the objections done by the SLAO is in tune with law. Insofar as the circulars are concerned, the Advocate General would submit that it is circulars for the purpose of functioning of the department, it cannot override the provision of the Act. The Act clothes the State with all such power statutorily and therefore, the circulars in the teeth of the statute would be of no avail. 9.1. Learned Advocate General has placed original records for a perusal at the hands of this Court with regard to the proceedings of acquisition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 11. It is the case of the petitioner in one of the batch of petitions – M/s Puravankara Limited that the 2nd respondent/Board on 06-04-2022 had confirmed that lands owned by the petitioners would not be subject matter of acquisition. This is said to have been 63 confirmed again on 11-04-2022. On 06-06-2022, the 3rd confirmation comes from the Board that lands were not involved in any proposed industrial acquisition. Owing to the fact that it was not the subject matter of acquisition, the 1st petitioner applies to the STRRA for approval of a development plan for the proposed project of the scheduled property, which was intended for residential and commercial development. In December, 2023 the 1st and 2nd petitioners entered into a joint development agreement facilitating joint development of lands between two parties. In February, 2024, the 1st petitioner is said to have obtained No Objection Certificate from Handenahalli Gram Panchayath. The petitioner is said to have paid ₹1,51,49,000/- to STRRA for plan sanction. This happens on 1st March, 2024. 12. When things stood thus, on 15-03-2024, a preliminary notification comes to be issued notifying the lands which are subject matter of all these petitions for the purpose of acquisition. The reason being the industrial development. After issuance of the preliminary notification, on the next day of notification, it appears a provisional development plan is proposed for the project in favour 64 of M/s Puravankara Limited. The petitioner then files its objections to the proposed acquisition on 10-04-2024. Upon the objections, on 6th May, 2024, the 2nd respondent issued individual notices to the petitioners under Section 28(2) of the Act informing the proposed acquisition of lands and a public notification also comes to be issued on 14-06-2024 and 27-06-2024. Against individual notices that were issued to the petitioners, the petitioners filed their detailed objections on two dates – one on 16-07-2024 and the other on 25-07-2024. Claiming to have considered the objections, a final notification comes to be issued by the Board for acquisition of lands so notified vide preliminary notification. This is broadly the challenge in all these cases. The companion petitions i.e., W.P.No.515 of 2025 and W.P.No.6708 of 2025 are preferred by agricultural land owners, who are said to be growing grapes or other fruit bearing crops even as on today in those areas and would toe the lines of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in contending that none of the objections filed by the petitioners have been considered and agricultural lands must be kept away from the purview of acquisition. 65 13. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi and the learned counsel Sri M. Shivaprakash, Sri N.Murali and Sri Varadarajan appearing for the respective petitioners have relied on several judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court, all of which would bear consideration qua their relevance in the course of the order. 14. On all the aforesaid facts and submissions, the issues deducible are four fold. The first fold being, whether agricultural lands could become subject matter of acquisition; the second fold, the notification does not indicate what king of industry is to come up, as public interest requires disclosure of reasons for acquisition; the third fold, the acquisition runs counter to two circulars issued by the State Government and the State Government has given a gobye to the circulars and the fourth fold, there is no enquiry conducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in terms of Section 28(3) of the Act, therefore, the final notification under Section 28(4) is unsustainable. 66 CONSIDERATION: FIRST FOLD: 15. The contention is, that agricultural lands cannot become subject of acquisition at all or right of hearing must be an effective process and not a mere formality. The petitioners contend that the executive orders or the Government orders on the issue cannot be given a go-bye, by the State itself. 15.1. The issue whether agricultural lands can be the subject matter of acquisition or not, is considered by this Court in the case of M.HOOLEPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 65. As rightly contended by Mr.Sabarad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Uday Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent, when vast tracts of lands are acquired for a specific purpose like in the instant case, setting up of an integrated steel plant, a portion of the land which even if it were to be garden land or fertile land cannot be left out or it cannot be excluded from the purview of acquisition has to be accepted and in this background, the circular dated 03.03.2007 has to be read. Infact Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Basappa v. State of Mysore, reported in (1974) 1 Kant LJ (SN) 273 while examining the vires of provision of 1 2014 SCC OnLine Kar.13559 67 KIADB Act has held that lands which are garden lands equipped with well and pump or the lands which are situated near the gramatana and likely to be needed for the village extension would not be a relevant ground for exclusion from acquisition.Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Venkatamma v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, reported in AIR 1995 Kar 351 while examining the legality of the acquisition of lands under the Karnataka acquisition of lands for grant of house sites Act, 1972 has held that even the agricultural lands located in the green belt area can also be acquired for a public purpose. It has been held as under: “9. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention also. The Act does not limit the power of the State Government to acquire any land for a public purpose. No other provision of law has been pointed out to us in support of the contention that agricultural lands situated in green-belt cannot be acquired by the State Government. In our opinion, what the State Government is required to do in such cases is to consider whether the said land can still be regarded as suitable for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired.Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, restricts the power of an occupant of agricultural land to put it to any other use without permission. It does not put any restriction on the power of the State Government to utilise such land for any other purpose. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner has the power under that provision to permit change of user of agricultural land. We can safely assume that the State Government was aware of this provision and keeping in mind this provision it thought it fit to acquire the appellants’ land. Even though it is now included in the green-belt it cannot be said that the satisfaction of the State Government in that behalf is not genuine”.” (Emphasis supplied) 68 15.2. In the case of SMT. C.N.SHARADA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA2, a learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “…. …. …. 14. The petitioners have sought to challenge the acquisition proceedings on two grounds. In fact, the two grounds are interconnected. It was contended that no notices were issued to the petitioners, nevertheless, they filed objections before the SLAO contending that the lands in question are fertile agricultural lands and therefore, they should not be acquired.The foundation for such objections is the Circular dated 18.03.2013. The learned Advocate General is right in his submissions, that the said Circular had in fact clarified the earlier Circular dated 03.03.2007. The earlier circular dated 03.03.2007 found undesirable effect, not supported by the statutory provisions. Therefore, in the case of M.Hooleppa& Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar. 13559, it was held that such pockets of lands, though fertile lands, cannot be left out of the acquisition proceedings, since it would form islands within the industrial area. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri C.Somashekar (supra) held that the Circular can only be treated as a guideline to the acquiring body and reliance sought to be placed by the petitioners on the strength of such Circular would be misplaced and would defeat the purposes of acquisition. Realising the mischief, the State Government thought it fit to clarify the Circular dated 03.03.2007 and consequently, issued another Circular on 18.03.2013.” (Emphasis supplied) 2 Writ Petition No.12128 of 2015 decided on 22-09-2023 69 15.3. Further, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA3, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 11. Similarly, there is no material to show that in about 37 acres of land, thick forest growth is found and that destruction of the same would affect the ecological balance and the environment. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the record of rights produced collectively at Annexure-M series do not show such tree growth in an extent of 37 acres of land. Even assuming that in some of these survey numbers some tree growth and greenery has come up, the same cannot be characterized as forest for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that private lands where trees have been grown cannot be acquired for public purpose and that such acquisition violates the fundamental duties of the citizens under Article 51A of the Constitution. It cannot also be said that such acquisition will be against the ratio laid down in Godavarman's case. The systematic development of industrial area as provided under the Act cannot be prevented on such considerations. The fundamental duty cast on the citizen to protect the environment and the forests cannot be stretched to such an extent to set aside acquisition made of private lands for public purpose.” (Emphasis supplied) All the afore-quoted judgments rendered by this Court would clearly indicate that there is no bar in proposing to acquire 3 2010 SCC OnLine Kar. 4387 70 agricultural lands or the lands in the green belt area for the purpose of establishment of industrial areas. The coordinate Bench in the judgments quoted supra, following the judgment of the Apex Court, observes that systematic development of industrial areas as provided under the Act cannot be prevented on consideration that there is growth or greenery has come up or otherwise. Therefore, the first fold that agricultural lands cannot become subject matter of acquisition as contended by the respective learned counsel does not hold water. SECOND FOLD: 16. The submission is, that there is no indication in the Notification as to why the acquisition has become necessary, as public interest would require disclosure of reasons for acquisition. What kind of industry would come up should be indicated in the Notification. The said submission is again unacceptable. The acquisition of lands in the case at hand is for industrial purpose. If it is for industrial purpose, it is rather difficult to project as to what kind of industry that the Board is wanting to set up. The law does not make it obligatory on the 71 part of acquiring authority to disclose complete details as to what it is going to do with the acquired land. It is for this reason that the preliminary notifications generally would contain whether the lands are being acquired for residential purpose or to set up an industrial area. If it is setting up an industrial area, every notification need not project as to what kind of industry or infrastructural facility would come up in the proposed lands for acquisition. Therefore, the submissions that agricultural lands cannot become the subject matter of acquisition have been considered and negatived by different Benches of this Court. 16.1. The Apex Court in the case of P. NARAYANAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 13. The provision for acquisition of land under the Act is contained in Section 28 which is somewhat different from the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to make a specific provision for acquisition of the land in the Act itself rather than to take recourse to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 28 would show that land can be acquired for the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Sub-section (3) 4 (2006) 7 SCC 578 72 of Section 28 is similar to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and the final notification is issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28. The necessary precondition for a valid notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 is that the State Government should be satisfied that the land is required for the purpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1) viz. for the purpose of (i) development by the Board, or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Therefore, in order to judge the validity of the notification what is to be seen is whether the acquisition of land is being made for securing the establishment of industrial areas or to promote the establishment or orderly development of industries in such areas. In view of the wide definition of the words “industrial infrastructural facilities” as contained in Section 2(7-a) of the Act, making of a technology park, research and development centre, townships, trade and tourism centres or making provisions for marketing and banking which would contribute to the development of industries will meet the objectives of the Act and acquisition of land for such a purpose would be perfectly valid. 14. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has strongly urged that as the impugned notification under Section 28(1) of the Act did not mention that the land was sought to be acquired for a technology park, research and development centre, shopping mall, engineering college, residential apartments, etc. the landowners could not make a proper and effective representation under Section 28(2) of the Act which deprived them of a valuable right given to them under the Act of showing cause against the proposed acquisition and consequently the notification is bad. Learned counsel has also submitted that the notification is very vague and cryptic. We are unable to accept the contention raised. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 clearly shows that the land can be acquired for (i) development by the Board; or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Under sub-section (8) of Section 28, the State Government is empowered, after it has taken possession of land, to transfer the same to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. Section 32 empowers the State Government to place at the disposal 73 of the Board any land vested in it and the Board is enjoined to deal with the land in accordance with the regulations made and directions given by the State Government in this behalf. This stage when the Board gets the authority to deal with the land comes at a later stage which is after the land has been developed by it. An entrepreneur or a company may give a proposal to the State Government for setting up an industry or infrastructural facility and the Government may thereafter acquire the land and give it to the Board. It is also possible that after the land has already been acquired and developed by the Board, it may be allotted to an entrepreneur or a company for setting up an industry or infrastructural facility. Therefore, the scheme of the Act does not show that at the time of acquisition of the land and issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the complete details of the nature of the industry or infrastructural facility proposed to be set up should also be mentioned. At that stage what is to be seen is whether the land is acquired for development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. In fact, if the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is accepted, it would mean that even at the stage of preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the nature of the activity which may be done by some entrepreneur or a company which may give a proposal for setting up an industry or infrastructural facility much after land has been acquired should also be taken note of and specifically mentioned in the notification, which is well-nigh impossible. While interpreting the provisions of the Act, the court should not only take into consideration the facts of the present case but should also have in mind all possible contingencies. Therefore, on a plain reading of the language used in the Act, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the impugned notification is vague or cryptic as the complete details of the project which was proposed to be established by Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (Respondent 9) were not mentioned and on account of the aforesaid lacuna, the landowners were deprived of 74 their right to make a proper representation or to show cause against the proposed acquisition.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds in a case concerning acquisition by the Board that it is not obligatory for the Board to project what kind of industry it is going to set up at the time of issuance of preliminary notification. At the stage of acquisition what is to be seen is whether the land is acquired for development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act as mentioned under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. The Apex Court further holds if the contention that the Board should disclose everything in the preliminary notification is accepted it would mean that even at the stage of preliminary notification the nature of activity which may be done by some entrepreneur or Company should also be taken note of in the notification which is impossible. While interpreting the provisions of the Act, the Court should not only take into consideration the facts of the said case, but should bear in mind all possible contingencies. In that light, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Board in the preliminary notification has not indicated what 75 kind of industry it wants to set up is a submission that is sans countenanced. THIRD FOLD: 17. The contention is, that the acquisition runs counter to two circulars issued by the State Government. Heavy reliance is placed by all the petitioners upon those circulars issued by the State Government. The circulars dated 03-03-2007 and 18-03-2013 read as follows: “ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಸಂೆ: ಐ 151 ಎ ಕೂ 2007 ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರದ ಸಾಲಯ, ಾಸ !ೌಧ $ೆಂಗಳ'ರು, )ಾಂಕ :03.03.2007. ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಷಯ: ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./.0.ವ23ಂದ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ; ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾA)ೕನಪ/ಸಲು ಅನುಸ6ಸ$ೇಾದ Dಾನಗಳ ಬ5ೆF. ***** ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./.0.ವ23ಂದ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ;/ ಏಕಘಟಕ ಸಂKೕಣಗM5ೆ ಜ=ೕನು ಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನಪ/ೊಳOP2+ದು9, ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಪSಕರಣಗಳTU ಸ6VಾW ಪ6XೕTಸ8ೆYೕ ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./.0.ಯು . ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನಪ/ೊಳOP2+ರುವZದು ಸಾರದ ಗಮನೆ; ಬಂ)8ೆ. 1) ೆೆೆೆ.ಐಐಐಐ.ಎಎಎಎ.////.0000. ಾY9 ಾY9 ಾY9 ಾY9 ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ-28(1) ರರರರ ಅ/ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅ/ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅ/ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅ/ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ, `ಾ-ೆಗಳO `ಾ-ೆಗಳO `ಾ-ೆಗಳO `ಾ-ೆಗಳO, ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. 76 2) cಾT cಾT cಾT cಾT ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ಧ ಧ ಧ ಧ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO/eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳO ಘಟಕಗಳO ಘಟಕಗಳO ಘಟಕಗಳO cೊಂ)ರುವ cೊಂ)ರುವ cೊಂ)ರುವ cೊಂ)ರುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. 3) ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ; ೆ; ೆ; ೆ; ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO/ಸಾರದ ಸಾರದ ಸಾರದ ಸಾರದ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO/l-ಾUNಾ6 l-ಾUNಾ6 l-ಾUNಾ6 l-ಾUNಾ6 ಗಳO ಗಳO ಗಳO ಗಳO ಭೂಪ6ವತೆ ಭೂಪ6ವತೆ ಭೂಪ6ವತೆ ಭೂಪ6ವತೆ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. 4) ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಆಸh*ೆS ಆಸh*ೆS ಆಸh*ೆS ಆಸh*ೆS, \ೆpೊSೕq \ೆpೊSೕq \ೆpೊSೕq \ೆpೊSೕq ಬಂr ಬಂr ಬಂr ಬಂr ಇತeೆ ಇತeೆ ಇತeೆ ಇತeೆ, ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಮೂಲಭೂತ !ೌಲಭಗಳ !ೌಲಭಗಳ !ೌಲಭಗಳ !ೌಲಭಗಳ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. 5) *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO, ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; 2 $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO, ತ6 ತ6 ತ6 ತ6 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./.ಾY9 ಕಲಂ28(4)ರ/ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ತVಾ6ಸುಾಗ vೕ-ೆ cೇMದ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./. ಾY9 ಕಲಂ-4ರ/ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? cೊರ/ಸ-ಾಗು2+8ೆ. ಇದ6ಂ8ಾW \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆ +ೕಣಕೂ; ಅಂ2ಮ ಅNಸೂಚೆ +ೕಣದTU ವ*ಾಸ ಉಂpಾಗು2+ರುವZದು ಸಾರದ ಗಮನೆ; ಬಂ)ರುತ+8ೆ. vೕ-ೆ cೇMದ -ೋಪ8ೋಷಗಳನು? ಸ6ಪ/ಸಲು ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./.0.ವ23ಂದ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ;/ಏಕಘಟಕ ಸಂKೕಣಗM5ೆ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನಪ/ಸಲು \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ತVಾ6ಸುವ ಸಂದಭದTU ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ Dಾನವನು? ಇನು? ಮುಂ8ೆ \ಾTಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಸ-ಾW8ೆ. 1) \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ತVಾ6ಸುವ ತVಾ6ಸುವ ತVಾ6ಸುವ ತVಾ6ಸುವ gದಲು gದಲು gದಲು gದಲು ಭೂ wಾಪಕ6ಂದ ಭೂ wಾಪಕ6ಂದ ಭೂ wಾಪಕ6ಂದ ಭೂ wಾಪಕ6ಂದ ಸೆ ಸೆ ಸೆ ಸೆ ನಂಬರುಾರು ನಂಬರುಾರು ನಂಬರುಾರು ನಂಬರುಾರು ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ wಾ/ wಾ/ wಾ/ wಾ/,,,, ಜಂi ಜಂi ಜಂi ಜಂi ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಾಯವನು? ಾಯವನು? ಾಯವನು? ಾಯವನು? mವyದ mವyದ mವyದ mವyದ ನಂತರೇ ನಂತರೇ ನಂತರೇ ನಂತರೇ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? cೊರ/ಸುವZದು cೊರ/ಸುವZದು cೊರ/ಸುವZದು cೊರ/ಸುವZದು. 2) 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ, ಸa`ಾನ ಸa`ಾನ ಸa`ಾನ ಸa`ಾನ, `ಾ-ೆ `ಾ-ೆ `ಾ-ೆ `ಾ-ೆ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಆಟದ ಆಟದ ಆಟದ ಆಟದ vೖ8ಾನ vೖ8ಾನ vೖ8ಾನ vೖ8ಾನ, ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಮೆ ಇರುವ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಮೆ ಇರುವ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಮೆ ಇರುವ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಮೆ ಇರುವ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU !ೇ6ಸ$ಾರದು !ೇ6ಸ$ಾರದು !ೇ6ಸ$ಾರದು !ೇ6ಸ$ಾರದು. 3) cಾT cಾT cಾT cಾT ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ಧ ಧ ಧ ಧ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO, eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. 4) ಆಯಕಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕಕij5ೆ ದೆ; ದೆ; ದೆ; ದೆ; ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO/ಸzಮ\ಾSNಾರ ಸzಮ\ಾSNಾರ ಸzಮ\ಾSNಾರ ಸzಮ\ಾSNಾರ ಗಳO ಗಳO ಗಳO ಗಳO ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೆ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೆ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೆ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೆ ಅನುಮ2 ಅನುಮ2 ಅನುಮ2 ಅನುಮ2 mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸ$ೇಕು cೊರತುಪ/ಸ$ೇಕು cೊರತುಪ/ಸ$ೇಕು cೊರತುಪ/ಸ$ೇಕು. 77 5) ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗM5ೆ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಪnರಕಾWರುವ ಆಸh*ೆS ಆಸh*ೆS ಆಸh*ೆS ಆಸh*ೆS, \ೆpೊSೕq \ೆpೊSೕq \ೆpೊSೕq \ೆpೊSೕq ಬಂr ಬಂr ಬಂr ಬಂr ಇತeೆ ಇತeೆ ಇತeೆ ಇತeೆ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಮೂಲಭೂತ !ೌಲಭಗಳ !ೌಲಭಗಳ !ೌಲಭಗಳ !ೌಲಭಗಳ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. 6) ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO, ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; 2 $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆ$ೆ$ೆ$ೆuೆಯುವ uೆಯುವ uೆಯುವ uೆಯುವ ತ6 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು ತ6 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು ತ6 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು ತ6 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. 7) 5ಾSಮ 5ಾSಮ 5ಾSಮ 5ಾSಮ {ಾಣದ {ಾಣದ {ಾಣದ {ಾಣದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ 5ಾSಮದ 5ಾSಮದ 5ಾSಮದ 5ಾSಮದ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸ+ರkೆ5ಾW ಸ+ರkೆ5ಾW ಸ+ರkೆ5ಾW ಸ+ರkೆ5ಾW 100 =ೕಟ} =ೕಟ} =ೕಟ} =ೕಟ} ಾ+ಯ ಾ+ಯ ಾ+ಯ ಾ+ಯ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. ಸy/- (ಎ.-ೋಕಾಥeಾ~) ಸಾರದ ಅNೕನ ಾಯದX (ೈ.ಅ) ಾ•ಜ ಮತು+ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಇ-ಾೆ” (Emphasis added) **** **** **** “ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಸಂೆ: ಐ 590 ಎಕೂ 2012 ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರದ ಸಾಲಯ, ಾಸ !ೌಧ $ೆಂಗಳ'ರು, )ಾಂಕ : 18.03.2013 ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಷಯ: ಕಾಟಕ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಪS8ೇ`ಾ•ವೃ)ƒ ಮಂಡM3ಂದ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶಾ;W ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನಪ/ಸಲು ಅನುಸ6ಸ$ೇಾದ Dಾನಗಳ ಬ5ೆF. **** ಕಾಟಕ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಪS8ೇ`ಾ•ವೃ)ƒ ಮಂಡM ವ23ಂದ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶಾ;W / ಏಕ ಘಟಕ ಸಂKೕಣ fೕಜೆಗM5ಾW ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನಪ/ೊಳOP2+ದು9, ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಪSಕರಣಗಳTU ಸ6VಾW ಪ6XೕTಸ8ೆYೕ ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./.0.ಯು ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನಪ/ೊಳOP2+ರುವZದು ಸಾರದ ಗಮನೆ; ಬಂ)8ೆ. 78 1. ೆೆೆೆ.ಐಐಐಐ.ಎಎಎಎ.////. ಾY9 ಾY9 ಾY9 ಾY9 ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 28(1)ರರರರ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTU 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ, `ಾ-ೆಗಳO `ಾ-ೆಗಳO `ಾ-ೆಗಳO `ಾ-ೆಗಳO,,,, ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಸa`ಾನಗಳO ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. 2. cಾT cಾT cಾT cಾT ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ಧ ಧ ಧ ಧ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO / eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳO ಘಟಕಗಳO ಘಟಕಗಳO ಘಟಕಗಳO cೊಂ)ರುವ cೊಂ)ರುವ cೊಂ)ರುವ cೊಂ)ರುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. 3. ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ ಸ_Mೕಯ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ fೕಜಾ \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO \ಾSNಾರಗಳO ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ; ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ; ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ; ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ; ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಅನುgೕ)ಸಲhijರುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಸಾರದ ಸಾರದ ಸಾರದ ಸಾರದ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಬದ-ಾವkೆ5ೊಂ/ರುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO / l-ಾUNಾ6ಗಳO l-ಾUNಾ6ಗಳO l-ಾUNಾ6ಗಳO l-ಾUNಾ6ಗಳO ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಪ6ವತೆ ಪ6ವತೆ ಪ6ವತೆ ಪ6ವತೆ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ mೕ/ರುವ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಪSಕರಣಗM5ೆ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಸಂಬಂNದ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. 4. *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO, ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; 2 $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO, ತ6 ತ6 ತ6 ತ6 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ !ೇ6ರುತ+ೆ. ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./. ಾY9 ಕಲಂ 28(4)ರ/ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ತVಾ6ಸುಾಗ vೕ-ೆ cೇMದ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/, ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./. ಾY9 ಕಲಂ 4ರ/ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? cೊರ/ಸ-ಾಗು2+8ೆ. ಇದ6ಂ8ಾW \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆ +ೕಣಕೂ;, ಅಂ2ಮ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯTUನ +ೕಣಕೂ; ವ*ಾಸ ಉಂpಾಗು2+ರುವZದು ಸಾರದ ಗಮನೆ; ಬಂ)ರುತ+8ೆ. ಈ ನೂನ*ೆಗಳನು? ಸ6ಪ/ಸಲು ಈ yಂ8ೆ )ಾಂಕ: 03.03.2007ರಂದು cೊರ/ಸ-ಾದ ಸು*ೊ+ೕ-ೆ ಐ 151 ಎಕೂ 2007 ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗM5ೆ ಸಂಬಂNದಂ*ೆ „ಾಗಶಃ wಾಪ/ಸ-ಾW8ೆ. ೆ.ಐ.ಎ./.0. ವ23ಂದ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಉ8ೆ9ೕಶೆ; / ಏಕ ಘಟಕ ಸಂKೕಣ fೕಜೆಗM5ೆ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನಪ/ಸಲು \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆಯನು? ತVಾ6ಸುವ ಸಂದಭದTU ಇನು? ಮುಂ8ೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ Dಾನವನು? \ಾTಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಸ-ಾW8ೆ: 1. \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು? ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು? ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು? ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು? ದƒಪ/ಸುವ ದƒಪ/ಸುವ ದƒಪ/ಸುವ ದƒಪ/ಸುವ gದಲು gದಲು gದಲು gದಲು `ೇಷ `ೇಷ `ೇಷ `ೇಷ ಭೂ!ಾANೕಾNಾ ಭೂ!ಾANೕಾNಾ ಭೂ!ಾANೕಾNಾ ಭೂ!ಾANೕಾNಾ6ಯವರು 6ಯವರು 6ಯವರು 6ಯವರು ಪS!ಾ+ತ ಪS!ಾ+ತ ಪS!ಾ+ತ ಪS!ಾ+ತ ಜ=ೕmನ ಜ=ೕmನ ಜ=ೕmನ ಜ=ೕmನ vೕ-ೆ† vೕ-ೆ† vೕ-ೆ† vೕ-ೆ† ಲzಣಗಳ ಲzಣಗಳ ಲzಣಗಳ ಲzಣಗಳ ಬ5ೆF ಬ5ೆF ಬ5ೆF ಬ5ೆF ಸ_ಳ ಸ_ಳ ಸ_ಳ ಸ_ಳ ಪ6Xೕಲೆ ಪ6Xೕಲೆ ಪ6Xೕಲೆ ಪ6Xೕಲೆ ನdೆದ ನdೆದ ನdೆದ ನdೆದ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ಸ_ಳ ಸ_ಳ ಸ_ಳ ಸ_ಳ ತmಾ ತmಾ ತmಾ ತmಾ iಪh• iಪh• iಪh• iಪh• ಸyತ ಸyತ ಸyತ ಸyತ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ \ಾSಥ=ಕ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು? ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು? ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು? ಪS!ಾ+ವೆಯನು?, ಸTUಸುವZದು ಸTUಸುವZದು ಸTUಸುವZದು ಸTUಸುವZದು cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ cೊರ/ಸುವ cೊರ/ಸುವ cೊರ/ಸುವ cೊರ/ಸುವ gದಲು gದಲು gದಲು gದಲು ಜಂi ಜಂi ಜಂi ಜಂi ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಅಳ*ೆ ಾಯವನು? ಾಯವನು? ಾಯವನು? ಾಯವನು? ಪneೈ ಪneೈ ಪneೈ ಪneೈ, ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅಂ2ಮ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಅNಸೂಚೆ ಪS!ಾ+ವೆ ಪS!ಾ+ವೆ ಪS!ಾ+ವೆ ಪS!ಾ+ವೆ ದƒಪ/ಸುವZದು ದƒಪ/ಸುವZದು ದƒಪ/ಸುವZದು ದƒಪ/ಸುವZದು 2. 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ 8ೇವ!ಾ_ನ, ಸa`ಾನ ಸa`ಾನ ಸa`ಾನ ಸa`ಾನ, `ಾ-ೆ `ಾ-ೆ `ಾ-ೆ `ಾ-ೆ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಮತು+ ಆಟದ ಆಟದ ಆಟದ ಆಟದ vೖ8ಾನ vೖ8ಾನ vೖ8ಾನ vೖ8ಾನ, ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಾಸದ ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO ಮೆಗಳO / ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ವಸ2 ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ !ಾಧಾದಷುj !ಾಧಾದಷುj !ಾಧಾದಷುj !ಾಧಾದಷುj ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. 79 3. cಾT cಾT cಾT cಾT ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ನdೆಯು2+ರುವ ಧ ಧ ಧ ಧ ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO ೈ5ಾ6ೆಗಳO, eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ eೋಗಗSಸ_ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ೈ5ಾ6ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಪS8ೇಶಗಳನು? ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಉಂpಾಗದಂ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ*ೆ*ೆ*ೆ !ಾಧಾದಷುj !ಾಧಾದಷುj !ಾಧಾದಷುj !ಾಧಾದಷುj ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. 4. ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಆಯಕij5ೆ ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಧೆ; ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ ಉಂpಾಗದಂ*ೆ *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO *ೋಟಗಳO, ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಫಲವ*ಾ+ದ ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು ಜ=ೕನು cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ cಾಗೂ ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; ವಷೆ; 2 $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ $ೆuೆಯುವ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO ಜ=ೕನುಗಳO, ತ6 ತ6 ತ6 ತ6 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಭೂ!ಾANೕನ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ ಪSKSY3ಂದ cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. 5. 5ಾSಮ{ಾkಾದ 5ಾSಮ{ಾkಾದ 5ಾSಮ{ಾkಾದ 5ಾSಮ{ಾkಾದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ ಸರಹ)9mಂದ 5ಾSಮದ 5ಾSಮದ 5ಾSಮದ 5ಾSಮದ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸುತ+ಲೂ ಸ+ರkೆ ಸ+ರkೆ ಸ+ರkೆ ಸ+ರkೆ5ಾW 5ಾW 5ಾW 5ಾW 100 =ೕಟ} =ೕಟ} =ೕಟ} =ೕಟ} ಾ+ಯ ಾ+ಯ ಾ+ಯ ಾ+ಯ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನು? cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು cೊರತುಪ/ಸುವZದು. ಸy/- (ಎ..eಾಮಕೃಷˆ) ಸಾರದ ಅNೕನ ಾಯದX (ೈ.ಆ) wಾ•ಜ ಮತು+ ೈ5ಾ6ೆ ಇ-ಾೆ.” (Emphasis added) The Circular dated 03-03-2007 is issued concerning the lands that they should not be acquired. There are six kinds of lands that should be dropped from acquisition i.e., lands of temples, schools, graveyards and residential houses; lands of running/sick industries; lands that come within the purview of Master Plan; lands of certain enterprises which are running essential services for public purpose; lands approved by the concerned authorities for conversion and horticulture lands which grow two produces in a year. This is again amplified by the circular dated 18-03-2013, which is for the same purpose. The addition is that, the lands can be dropped only if it 80 does not violate the contiguity in the project proposed. However, lands which are converted are not exempted from acquisition under this circular. The agricultural land holders who had filed several petitions contend that even today they are continuing with agricultural/horticultural activities. Therefore, the circulars would become applicable to the kinds of lands that can be exempted subject to the condition that it would not take away the contiguity of the industrial set up, the purpose for which the acquisition is now made. A plantation or an agricultural land where horticulture crops are grown, cannot be seen to be subsisting in a thick industrial surrounding. Therefore, it is for the respondent/SLAO or the Board or the State even, to consider the applicability of the circulars, only if it does not take away the contiguity. FOURTH FOLD: 18. The submission is, that there is no enquiry conducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as necessary under Section 28(3) of the Act. It is the submission of all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the cases at hand that there is no enquiry as contemplated under Section 28(3) of the Act conducted 81 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as even before the last date of filing of objections, the objections had been rejected and final notification is issued. Therefore, all other submissions with regard to the process of acquisition are not tenable or the Circulars not being followed would take a back seat or brushed into oblivion for the sole reason of one stream of submission meriting acceptance that is the petitioners were not heard in the matter. The Apex Court holds that in land acquisition cases where property is being taken away, right to hear must be an effective process and not mere formality. 18.1. The Apex Court in the case of KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH5, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 33.2.The Right to be heard 33.2.1. Following the right to a meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is the right of the property-bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham. 5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 968 82 33.2.2. Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3-C of the National Highways Act, 1956, are some statutory embodiments of this right. 33.2.3. Judicial opinions recognising the importance of this right are far too many to reproduce. Suffice it to say that that the enquiry in which a landholder would raise his objection is not a mere formality. 33.3. The Right to a reasoned decision 33.3.1. That the authorities have heard and considered the objections is evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the authority to take an informed decision and communicate the same to the objector. 33.3.2. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956, are the statutory incorporations of this principle. 33.3.3. Highlighting the importance of the declaration of the decision to acquire, the Courts have held that the declaration is mandatory, failing which, the acquisition proceedings will cease to have effect.” (Emphasis supplied) 83 18.2. The Apex Court was following the judgment rendered in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI6, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.” (Emphasis supplied) 18.3. In the case of KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL7, the Apex Court has held as follows: “…. …. …. 14. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, “public purpose” is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. 6 (2005) 7 SCC 627 7 (2012) 2 SCC 25 84 15. Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collector's recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections. It is pertinent to note that declaration under Section 6 has to be made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). As said by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 627] , the appropriate Government while issuing declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also to the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making such further inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary and also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. … … … 18. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India [(1973) 2 SCC 337] this Court while dealing with Section 5-A of the LA Act observed as under: (SCC p. 342, para 7) “7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. … The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A.” … … … 20. In Mukesh Hans [(2004) 8 SCC 14] this Court reiterated that: (SCC p. 28, para 36) 85 “36. … right of representation and hearing contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act is a very valuable right of a person whose property is sought to be acquired and he should have appropriate and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that the acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made.” (Emphasis supplied) 18.4. In the case of GOJER BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL8, the Apex Court has held as follows: “…. …. …. 15. The ambit and scope of Section 5-A had been considered in several judgments, but we do not consider it necessary to burden this judgment by noticing various judicial precedents and feel that it would be sufficient to take cognizance of four recent judgments in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana [Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 402] , Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., (2012) 2 SCC 25 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 506] , Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India [(2013) 1 SCC 403 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 620] and Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [(2013) 4 SCC 210 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 556] . 16. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana [Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 402], the Court referred to the earlier precedents on the subject and culled out the following propositions: (SCC p. 805, paras 39-40) “39. In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A with a 8 (2013) 16 SCC 660 86 view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme. 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.” … … … 21. In our view, non-consideration of the objections filed under Section 5-A(1) has resulted in denial of effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The manner in which the Joint Secretary to the Government approved the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Collector favouring acquisition of the property is reflective of total non- application of mind by the competent authority to the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Collector and the report prepared by him.” (Emphasis supplied) 87 The afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court would indicate that opportunity of hearing to those persons, whose lands would become subject matter of acquisition or consideration of their objections would become imperative. Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides an opportunity to the citizens to file objections and thus confers a valuable right contained under Article 300A of Constitution. 18.5. Even under the statutory landscape of the Act, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI ANIL AMENCHERLA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA9, interprets Section 28(3) of the Act and holds as follows: “…. …. …. 27. In Re. Question No. 2: The well-reasoned order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act would constitute the raw-material for the Government to take a final call on the issuance of the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. When Section 28(3) order itself is deficient, Section 28(4) notification also becomes unsustainable. This is all the more so when nothing is placed on record to show that the Government has applied its mind afresh to the objections of the petitioners and the report of the SLAO. 9 2013 SCC OnLine Kar.6457 88 28. As held in the case of Kamal Trading (supra), the final notification has to be issued only after the Government is satisfied on considering of Section 5-A report (Section 28(3) order in these cases). It is reiterated in the said decision that the Government, while issuing the final notification, is required to apply its mind not only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also to the report which is submitted by the Collector (SLAO in the instant case) and also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. Mere rote acceptance or endorsement of the SLAO's order by the Government does not meet the requirements of law.” (Emphasis supplied) The coordinate Bench holds that when the order passed under Section 28(3) of the Act itself is deficient, the final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Act becomes unsustainable. 19. On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court what would unmistakably emerge is, once a preliminary notification is issued under Section 28(1) of the Act and objections are called under Section 28(2), the proceedings to be held or complied with under Section 28(3) of the Act is imperative. Whether there has been compliance or not is necessary to be noticed in the case at hand. For illustration, the date on which the notice is served upon the petitioners under Section 28(2) of the Act and the dates of filing of 89 objections and rejection of objections are noted petition-wise. They are as follows: (a) In W.P.No.293/2025, notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner on 24-05-2024; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 24-05-2024; the petitioner submits a detailed objection on 09-06-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 09-10-2024; (b) In W.P.No.255/2025, notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act returned unserved on the petitioner on 07-05-2024; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 07-06-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 01-10-2024; (c) In W.P.No.515/2025, petitioners file their objections before issuance of the notice under Section 28(2) of the Act to the preliminary notification on 03-04-2024, notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioners on 25-05-2024; the petitioners filed their objections to the preliminary 90 notification after issuance of notice under Section 28(2) of the Act on 03-03-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner. (d) In W.P.No.671/2025, the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 02-05-2024; the petitioner submits his objections on 20-05-2024; notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner on 27-05-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 09-10-2024; (e) In W.P.No.672/2025, the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 02-05-2024; petitioner submits his objections on 20-05-2024; notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner on 27-05-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 09-10-2024; (f) In W.P.No.1173/2025, notice dated 07-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner on 07-05-2024; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 91 07-06-2024; respondent No.3 under Section 28(3) of the Act rejects the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 21-09-2024; (g) In W.P.No.1399/2025, petitioner files his objections even before issuance of the notice under Section 28(2) of the Act to the preliminary notification on 23-04-2024; notice dated 07-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner on 07-05-2024; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 26-06-2024; respondent No.3 under Section 28(3) of the Act rejects the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 21-09-2024; (h) In W.P.No.1405/2025, notice dated 08-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 06-06-2024; respondent No.3 under Section 28(3) of the Act rejects the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 21-09-2024; (i) In W.P.No.4055/2025, notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner on 23-05-2024; 92 petitioners filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 29-05-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 07-10-2024; (j) In W.P.No.5030/2025, the Board issued notice seeking objections on the preliminary notification on 06-05-2024; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 16-04-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 07-10-2024; (k) In W.P.No.1280/2025, notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner on 24-05-2024; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 29-05-2024; respondent No.3 rejected the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 23-03-2016; (l) In W.P.No.33550/2024, petitioner files his objections even before issuance of the notice under Section 28(2) of the Act to the preliminary notification on 10-04-2024; notice dated 06-05-2024 under Section 28(2) of the Act is served on the petitioner; the petitioner filed his objections to the preliminary notification on 93 16-07-2024; respondent No.3 under Section 28(3) of the Act rejects the objections of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 09-10-2024; 20. In all the aforementioned cases, notices are served upon the respective petitioners as obtaining under Section 28(2) of the Act on different dates as noted supra. The petitioners have filed their respective objections to the preliminary notification on different dates as noted hereinabove. The 3rd respondent rejects the objections by drawing up proceedings under Section 28(3) of the Act in terms of the respective orders as indicated supra. Although objections are rejected prior to issuance of final notification, which comes about on 02-12-2024, on a perusal of original records, the objections are tabulated and no contention advanced by the petitioners qua the Circulars or otherwise, is considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. If regard is had to the findings of the Apex Court in the judgment in KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION’S case supra what would unmistakably emerge is that, there has been violation of principles of natural justice. 94 21. It is a settled principle of law that what is not considered by way of objections cannot be supplanted by way of objections in the writ petition when the matter is brought before the Constitutional Court. 21.1. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER10. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in GordhandasBhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. GordhandasBhanji, 1951 SCC 1088: AIR 1952 SC 16]: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 10 (1978) 1 SCC 405 95 Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” (Emphasis supplied) 21.2. This judgment is subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. BANDEEP SINGH11, wherein it holds as follows: “…. …. …. 4. There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405: (1978) 2 SCR 272] of which the following paragraph deserves extraction: (SCC p. 417, para 8) “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088: AIR 1952 SC 16: 1952 SCR 135]: (AIR p. 18, para 9) 11 (2016) 1 SCC 724 96 ‘9. … public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.’ Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”” (Emphasis supplied) 21.3. Later, in the case of 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA12, the Apex Court holds as follows: “…. …. …. 100. Valiant attempts have been made by counsel in the High Court as well as counsel in this Court to support the order on grounds which are outside the order, stating that such grounds make it clear that in any case, the government order has been made in public interest. The celebrated passage in Mohinder Singh Gill [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405] states that: (SCC p. 417, para 8) “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here 12 (2019) 18 SCC 401 97 draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088: AIR 1952 SC 16: 1952 SCR 135]: (SCR p. 140: AIR p. 18, para 9) ‘9. … public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.’ Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” We are of the view that it is the Central Government that has to be “satisfied” that its order is in public interest and such “satisfaction” must, therefore, be of the Central Government itself and must, therefore, appear from the order itself. All these valiant attempts made to sustain such order must be rejected.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. In the light of the records being sketchy with regard to the objections filed by these petitioners, the matters would require remittance to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the objections, afford opportunity of hearing and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In the light of the acquisition being in violation of sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act, as a natural 98 consequence, the final notification under Section 28(4) would be rendered unsustainable. The only submission that has merited consideration at this juncture is that there is violation of Section 28(3) of the Act. Though it is not the law that every objections of every land owner which are identical should bear consideration but there should be semblance of application of mind while considering the objections filed by the land owners. Therefore, this Court has found fault with the procedure adopted under Section 28(3) of the Act while the preceding procedure under Section 28(1) and (2) is not found fault with. For the reason that there is violation of Section 28(3) of the Act, the final notification so issued would also tumble down along with the order under Section 28(3) of the Act. The preliminary notification thus stands undisturbed. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:– O R D E R (i) Writ Petitions are allowed in part. (ii) Orders passed considering the objections under Section 28(3) of the Act stand quashed in all these cases. As a 99 consequence, Final Notifications dated 03.10.2024 and 02.12.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent / Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 also stands quashed. (iii) The matters are remitted back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer/respondent No.3 to redo the proceedings from the stage of Section 28(3) of the Act and take the issue to its logical conclusion. (iv) The proceedings as directed now to be done afresh from the stage of Section 28(3) of the Act shall conclude within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. All pending I.As’ in these petitions stand disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Nvj/CT:SS Page No. 99 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 20.02.2026