VEERABADRAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the land losers in the acquisition by the Government of Karnataka under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act'). The acquisition of lands is for the purpose of third respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') for formation of Bidadi Industrial Layout. The Government of Karnataka issued notifications under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the KIAD Act on 15.4.1997 and 31.1.1998 proposing to acquire certain lands as shown in the notifications, situated at Thalaguppe, Baleveeranahalli, Bananduru, Shanumangala and Abbanakuppe Villages. Notices were issued under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed their objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. After hearing the petitioners, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, overruled the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 28(3) of KIAD Act. Thereafter final notifications came to be issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 18.10.2007 and 20.11.2007. According to the petitioners, they are still in possession of the properties in question; whereas according to the respondents, possession of the properties has been taken over by the State Government and is handed over to respondent No. 3- Board for formation of industrial layout. The preliminary as well as final notifications are called in question in these writ petitions.

(2.) Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of certain of the petitioners submits that out of total extent of 767 acres 14 guntas, situated at Shanumangala Village, which were sought to be acquired under the impugned notifications, an area of 76 acres 36 guntas has been deleted pursuant to the notification at Annexure-G filed in W.P. No. 7044/2008 and such deleted lands are not contiguous with each other; thereby the industrial area cannot be formed uniformly in one area; that the lands of the petitioners are similar to the lands which are deleted from the acquisition and therefore their lands also ought to have been deleted from acquisition; that the lands of only powerful persons are deleted and whereas the lands of poor persons like the petitioners are acquired; that the action of the respondents in not deleting the lands from acquisition is discriminatory, mala fide and arbitrary; that though the objections are filed by the petitioners, no enquiry was held into the matter; that the statement of objections filed by the respondents does not reveal that the Board has taken preliminary steps such as proper planning, survey, etc. before going ahead with the acquisition process. On these among other grounds it is contended that the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated.

(3.) Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No. 13369/2008, has argued that the petitioners' family has lost 17 acres 26 guntas of lands in acquisition by respondent No. 3-Board at an earlier point of time; that Sy. Nos. 155 and 156 totally measuring 2 acres 12 guntas are the only properties which have remained with the petitioners and that those properties are also sought to be acquired by the respondents; that the objections filed by the petitioners for preliminary notification have been over ruled by the Special Land Acquisition Officer without application of mind; that the lands belonging to powerful and rich persons are deleted from acquisition at the intervention of the then Minister for Industries and Commerce, he relies upon at Annexures-M and N in W.P. No. 13369/2008 in support of the said contention; that non-deletion of petitioners' lands from acquisition is colourable exercise of power and the same is arbitrary on the part of the respondents; that the Circular dated 3.3.2007 issued by the State Government is not followed by the State Government; that the said Circular prohibits the State Government to acquire irrigated lands, garden lands, etc. and though the lands of the petitioners are irrigated lands, capable of growing two crops and some of the lands are garden lands, same are illegally acquired contrary to the aforementioned Circular; that the consent of the Pollution Control Board is not obtained prior to the commencement of acquisition procedure; that the consent of Pollution Control Board is necessary before going ahead with the acquisition proceedings in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa and Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 2038. On these grounds, Sri H.C. Shivaramu, argued for quashing the acquisition notifications.