MALLIGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the matter is listed for hearing on I.A., it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates. The petitioners have called into question the final notification, dated 31.7.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD' Act for short) insofar as they pertain to the petitioners' lands. The lands in question along with the other lands totally measuring 1057 acres are being compulsorily acquired for the purpose of industrial development.

(2.) Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for Sri Girish Baladare for the petitioners submits that many of the petitioners are not even put on individual notices on the issuance of the preliminary notification. That is why and how some of the petitioners are denied of the opportunity to file the objections. Some of the petitioners, who have filed the objections, are not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. Without considering their objections and hearing them, the order under Section 28(3) and consequently the notification under Section 28(4) are issued. He brings to my notice that this Court, by its order, dated 13.2.2012 (Annexure-R) in Writ Petition Nos. 37251-276/2011 has already quashed the final notification insofar as it pertains to the landowners in Writ Petition Nos. 37251-276/2011.

(3.) Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State Government brings to my notice the averments contained in paragraph No. 9 of the memorandum of the writ petition. It reads as follows:-