GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal arises out of the following facts.

(3.) The 3rd respondent, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter called the Board) issued a Notification dated 6th April 2004 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 (for short the Act) proposing acquisition of land bearing serial Nos. 114, 115 and 116 in village Kannamangala for the purpose of constructing a trumpet interchange and access road from National Highway No. 7 to the Bangalore Airport. This land was notified for acquisition on the basis of a comprehensive feasibility report submitted by the Technical Consultant for the project, Sikon Private Ltd. The Karnataka State Indus trial Investment and Development Corporation (for short "KSIIDC") in the mean-time proposed a change in the location of the trumpet interchange and the access road on the ground that only 53 Acres of land needed for these two projects whereas the Notification was dated 6th April 2004 pertaining to 80 acres and 27 gunthas was far in excess of the requirement and therefore suggested reconsideration of the mat ter. Vide letter dated 24th August 2004 the Bangalore Airport Ltd. informed the KSIIDC that the proposed location of the trumpet interchange and the access road was final and that there was no reason to make a change in their alignment. Not withstanding the aforesaid communication the Board issued a fresh Notification under section 28(1) of the Act on 5th December 2005 releasing the land proposed to be acquired by the earlier Notification dated 6th April, 2004, and proposing acquisi tion of the land bearing serial Nos. 118-119. The appellants who had in the mean while purchased the aforesaid land vide two Registered Sale Deeds dated 23rd and 26th November 2005 appeared in the enquiry under Section 28(3) of the Act before the second respondent i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and submitted their objections, inter-alia, pointing out that the land now notified for acquisition had been converted to non-agricultural use by orders of the Revenue Authorities and that they proposed to put up a commercial complex at that place. They also pointed out that that there were other alternative Government lands available for construction of the trumpet interchange and access road which could be utilized thus sparing the lands of the appellants from acquisition. The second respondent, however, overruled the objections on various grounds particularly highlighting that the change had been necessitated as the earlier proposal had not been found to be technically sound. The Board also issued a notification dated 3rd June 2006 under section 28(4) of the Act acquiring the land belonging to the appellants. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition primarily on the ground that a large chunk of Government land was available which could be utilized and that the acquisition of private land was therefore not justified. It was also pleaded that the second respon dent had not given a personal hearing to the appellants as envisaged under section 28(3) of the Act and that the reports submitted by the said respondent to the State Government did not adequately meet the issue raised before him. It was also sub mitted that the acquisition was motivated by mala fides as there were no sound and technical reasons for the sudden change in the alignment that was now proposed. The learned Single Judge in his judgment and order of 9th August 2007 found that the allegations of mala fide had not been made out and the contention that the personal hearing envisaged under section 28(3) of the Act had not been given also de served to be rejected. The learned Judge also opined that the change had been ne cessitated on account of technical reasons and having held as above, dismissed the writ petition. The matter was then taken in appeal before the Division Bench. Simi lar arguments were raised before the Bench which in its judgment dated 20th Sep tember 2007 held as under : "On a thorough consideration of the documentary material and the submission made at the Bar, we are of the view that the proposed change of locating T.I. and A.R. by the 1st respondent is well-founded based on sound technical reasons. It may be that because of change of location, the appellants might lose lucrative and prime prop erty but nonetheless the individual interests have to yield to the public demands and public needs. If the lands are converted to non-agricultural purpose, the appellants do get the market value for their property. Therefore, we do not find any reason to hold that the proposed change of location of the T.I. and A.R. is actuated with any mala fides. The appellant makes only a vague statement of alternate availability of the Gov ernment lands without precisely pointing out the particulars of the Government lands which can suitably satisfy the needs. The contention that there are alternate Gov ernment lands available for construction of T.I and A.R without need of acquisition of other private lands, is not substantiated by any credible material. The proceedings of the enquiry dated 16-1-2006 of the 2nd respondent discloses that the appellants were present in the enquiry, submitted written objections with documentary materials. The acquisition is resisted on the ground that the lands are converted for non-agricultural purpose and that they have borrowed loan from Andhra Bank for putting up a shopping complex. The appellants have not requested the 2nd respondent for an opportunity of further hearing in the matter. It appears from the proceedings that the appellants had nothing more to say than what is stated in their objection statement. There is no request for further personal hearing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent did not provide necessary opportunity of personal hearing as required under Section 28(3) of the Act and the finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard is sound and proper. We find no merit in the appeal. Hence, dismissed.