ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought for quashing the order at Annexure-H dated 8.9.2011 passed under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short) and Annexure-J, final declaration dated 7.12.2011 passed under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the consequential notices issued pursuant to the final declaration. Petitioners are the joint owners of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 68 of Guddadarangavvanahalli, kasaba hobli, Chitradurga taluk measuring 5 acres 16 guntas. On 24.7.2010 a notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act was issued by the first respondent declaring the area of 1 acre 10 guntas out of Sy.No. 68/1 of Guddadarangavvanahalli, kasaba hobli, Chitradurga taluk as an industrial area. On the same day, another notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was issued in respect of the very extent of 1 acre 10 guntas out of Sy.No. 68/1 of Guddadarangavvana-halli village, proposing to acquire the said land for the purpose of establishing terminal station for the benefit of GAIL (India) Limited. The final declaration was issued to the same extent on 3.12.2010 which came to be gazetted on 4, 12.2010. The copy of the final declaration is produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8998/2011 (LA-KIADB) questioning the final declaration, which came to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Thereafter the statement of objections is filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-F. The objections are overruled by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KIADB') as per Annexure-H dated 8.9.2011. Subsequently, the final declaration was made once again on 7.12.2011, which came to be gazetted on the same day. Subsequently, the notices are issued as per Annexures-K and K1 to the petitioners calling upon them to appear before the Price Fixation Committee to have their say in the matter before proceeding to pass the Award. Questioning the acquisition notification and the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer overruling the statement of objections, these writ petitions are filed.

(2.) Mr. Krishna Bhat, learned advocate for the petitioners on going through the statement of objections filed by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer, submits that the petitioners have mainly raised three objections viz., the acquisitions made under the provisions of the KIAD Act is illegal inasmuch as the acquisitions ought to have been made under the special enactment of the Central Government i.e., Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'PMP Act'); the petitioners intend to use the land in question for tourism industry inasmuch as they want to establish a resort and that therefore it is not open for the respondents to take away the right of the petitioners to start an industry in order to establish another industry by GAIL (India) Limited; the industrial area cannot be made in patches and it should have been vast extent and about 1 acre of land as acquired in this matter should not have been acquired for the purpose of a single industry.

(3.) The records maintained by KIADB reveal that M/s GAIL (India) Limited is a Government of India undertaking.