G. ESHWARAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari and quash the notifications dated 29.11.2008 (Annexure-B and B-1) and the notification dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure F). By the said notifications, the area wherein the petitioners' land is situate has been declared the Industrial Area under Section 3(1) and the lands belonging to the petitioners has been notified for acquisition under Section 28 (1) and Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIAD Act for Short) by the State Government for the benefit of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB for Short) for formation of the Somapur Industrial Area.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they are brothers and are the absolute owners of the agricultural lands situate at Chandanahosahalli Village, Somapur Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore. The first petitioner is the owner of lands in Sy.Nos.31/1 and 32/1 measuring 28 guntas and 1 acre 15 guntas respectively. The second petitioner is the owner of lands in Sy.Nos. 31/2 and 32/2 measuring 29 guntas and 1 acre 15 guntas respectively and the third petitioner is the owner of lands in Sy.Nos.31/3 and 32/3 measuring 28 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment and have developed the same investing their hard earned money and labour. Agriculture is their main avocation and the only source of livelihood for which the said lands are put to use.

(3.) When that is the position, the first respondent has notified the same for acquisition for the benefit of the second respondent in the manner stated supra by issue of the impugned notifications. Notices were accordingly issued by the third respondent and the petitioners filed their objection on 11.03.2009. It was contended that the land in question is within the Yellow Belt as per the Master Plan of Nelamangala Local Planning Area 2021 issued by BMRDA and is near to the village limits and therefore not available for industrial purpose. The other objections relating to personal difficulties were also expressed. The petitioners state that the third respondent without affording any opportunity and without considering the objections as per law, has proceeded to issue the final notification.