SRI MAHESH K CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petitioners - Six in number belonging to one family have questioned the legality of notification issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 [for short 'the Act'].

(2.) The main grievance on behalf of the Petitioners as submitted by Sri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned Counsel, is that the Petitioners have been clamped with the notice under Sub-section [6] of Section 28 of the Act even without the lands of the Petitioners figuring in either preliminary notification under Section 28[1] of the Act or in individual notices in terms of Section 28(2) of the Act and without affording an opportunity of hearing and to the knowledge of the Petitioners, their names do not figure even in declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, but are being surprised by a notice under Sub-section [6] of Section 28 of the Act, calling upon them to handover possession of subject land on the premise that the lands have vested in the State Government etc.

(3.) A notice issued under Sub-section [6] of Section 28 of the Act, if is not preceded by requirement of preliminary notification, individual notices to the land owners, opportunity of making representations and hearing before the land acquisition officer and thereafter report and informed declaration by the State Government which are all sine qua non and if it is only after all these stages the vesting of land under Section 28[5] of the Act through publication in the official gazette of the declaration etc., can take place and when all these requirements have to be complied with, in their absence a notice straightaway under Section 28(6) of the Act is not only bad in law but also not rule conforming and a notice of this nature had been issued and Respondents had been called upon to voice their objections, it is nothing short of trampling of the rule of law by violating mandatory statutory provisions.