K P SACHIDANANDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claiming to be the owners of certain bits of lands have filed these writ petitions challenging the notifications issued by the state Govt. under Section 28 (1) and (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

(2.) THE State Govt. issued several notifications proposing to acquire certain lands under Section 28 (1) of the Act for the purpose of establishing industries by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on different dates. These notifications were followed by final notifications issued under section 28 (4) of the Act. Before issuing the said notifications, the state Govt. issued a notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act declaring the area as an industrial area comprising of the lands notified in the said notifications. Thereafter. The State Govt. has also issued another notification under Section 1 (3) of the Act making applicable the provisions of the Act in respect of the industrial area notified under Section 3 (1) of the Act.

(3.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the proceedings. proposing to acquire the lands , on the ground that the said lands ought not to have been acquired as certain area has been fully utilised for the purpose of putting up residential houses and for establishing industries by investing huge sum of money. Further, on the ground the said acquisition results in displacing the residents of the locality and take away the livelihood of certain persons. It is also the submission of the advocates appearing for some of the petitioners that certain lands were permitted to be used for non agricultural purpose and in the event if the said lands were acquired for establishing, an industry, the owners of the said lands would be deprived of utilizing the said lands for the purpose for which the lands have been permitted to be used. In some writ petitions it is contended that certain lands come within the green belt area and therefore, the same shall not be declared to be an industrial area for the purpose of utilising the said land for the purpose of establishing industries. Some of the petitioners contended that the lands which are now proposed to be acquired for the purpose of establishing industries by the Board are not really required for establishing industries by the Board and on the other hand the impugned acquisition proceedings are for the benefit of one M/s. Nandi infrastructures Corridor Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as Nandi) and therefore. The proposed acquisition is illegal and void as it results in colourable exercise of power and also suffers from legal malafides.