PARAMASHIVAIAH Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed raising the challenge to the preliminary notification, dated 07.08.2006 and the final notification, dated 20.08.2008 issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) respectively of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('the K.I.A.D. Act' for short). The preliminary notification is in respect of 1032 acres 20 guntas spread over five villages of Ganapathihalli, Punagamaranahalli, Karigiripura Village, Ajjanahalli, Doddamaranahalli situated in Bangalore South Taluk. Out of these lands, 259 acres 29 guntas in Doddamaranahalli are left out of the acquisition on the ground that there is a lot of opposition from the people of the said village. The final notification was issued covering 746 acres 25 guntas. Out of the said 746 acres 25 guntas, 6 acres 23 guntas, though included in the final notification, are excluded from the industrial area by the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the K.I.A.D. Act on 22.01.2010. The same is for three reasons: (a) It is adjoining the Gramatana (b) There is an independent road to the said land (c) An industrial shed is already constructed thereon.

(2.) Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri B. Keshava Murthy, for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 40336-40337/2011 submits that the lands in question are situated in the residential zone. Without examining the desirability of acquiring the residential lands for the industrial development, the impugned notifications are issued. He complains of the non-application of mind. He submits that the Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation ('K.S.S.I.D.C' for short) first indicated its requirement for 1000 acres but subsequently went on varying its requirements downwards. He submits that the respondents are not justified in acquiring the large chunks of lands without auditing the land requirements.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel submits that till now nobody has deposited any substantial portion of the probable compensation amount. The respondents are not justified in resorting to reckless acquisition and thereafter trying to identify the beneficiaries. He submits that such things amount to the Colourable exercise of power. The land cannot be acquired for speculative purpose.