P. NARAYANAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND M/S. ROYAL FRAGRANCES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. In WP 17539/2004, it is claimed by the petitioner that he is the owner in possession of lands bearing survey No. 54/2 measuring 22 guntas and survey No. 54/5 measuring 21 guntas of Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. It transpires that notifications under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act', for brevity) was issued and duly published in the Karnataka gazette as on 10.12.2001, declaring an area, including the above, as an "industrial area". Notifications under Section 1(3) of the KIAD Act, applying the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act to the lands and a Preliminary notification under Section 28(1), were simultaneously issued and duly published in the Official gazette. The notifications indicated that the lands were being acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIADB', for brevity). The petitioner is said to have filed his objections to the same, except that there was no opportunity to file any objection to the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act. The petitioner has stated that apart from a total extent of 21 acres of land of Devarabisanahalli, vast extent of lands of Bellandur, Kariyammana Agrahara etc., totally measuring 650 acres was sought to be acquired purportedly for the purpose of setting up industries. The final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act dated 23 -2 -2004 had also indicated the same purpose. However, it was thereafter learnt by the petitioner that the acquisition is for the benefit of M/s. Royal Fragrances Private Limited, the fourth respondent herein, whom the petitioner suspects to be only interested in the land as real estate and is not expected to be used by the said company to set up any industry. The petitioner contends that the State Government and the KIADB had initiated the acquisition proceedings at the behest of the Directorate of Industries and Commerce and the Karnataka Udyog Mitra as it was intended that the lands were to be acquired for the benefit of the fourth respondent on the pretext that the said respondent had proposed to establish an Information Technology Park and a High Level Committee had mechanically accepted the claim of the fourth respondent as to its requirement of 4 lakh Square Feet of land for the said project. The petitioner would contend that as per the project report of the fourth respondent, it required only 12 acres of land and had identified various lands of Devarabisanahalli, not including the petitioner's land, for the purpose. But, however, the land of the petitioner also having been included in proposing to earmark a total extent of 21 acres 2 guntas to be handed over to the fourth respondent, the petitioner questions the bona fides of the competent authorities in this regard. It is in this background that the present petition is filed. WP 30981/2004 The petitioners claim to be agriculturists and permanent residents of Kariyammana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Krishnarajapura Taluk, Bangalore District. Petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2 and 4 were the owners of land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, being a portion of land bearing survey No. 30/1. It is further stated that in the Comprehensive Development Plan, the land of the petitioners is shown as residential zone and the said land is attached to the Bhovi Hatti village, Kariyammana Agrahara and Devarabisanahalli, which is a kilometre away from the village. The said land and the surrounding area is built up and developed. It is also stated that, the land in question is a well developed garden land consisting of 35 Coconut trees, 30 Sapota trees, Mulberry, certain jungle trees, and flowering plants etc., and the petitioner has constructed a farm house, part of which is being used as his residence. Respondent No. 7 is a private limited company having its registered office at Delhi. On 29.08.2001, the seventh respondent had submitted its proposal for establishment of a Software/IT park as a single unit complex, seeking acquisition through KIADB, of 12 acres of land in Survey Nos. 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3 of Devarabisanahalli Village and Survey Nos. 27, 28, 29/1, 29/2 and 30/1 of Kariammana Agrahara Village, Bangalore South Taluk, for their proposed project. Their project was approved by the third respondent - SHLCC, on 18.09.2001. Respondent No. 3 submitted its report to the State Government for further action, which in turn, forwarded the report to the second respondent - KIADB, to take action, to acquire the proposed lands. The fourth respondent - Special Land Acquisition officer, KIADB, had proposed to acquire 22 acres 21/2 guntas as against 12 acres, as required by the seventh respondent - M/s. Royal Fragrances Private Limited, and the said proposal was submitted to the first respondent. The seventh respondent, by its letter dated 22.11.2001, requested the second respondent -KIADB to acquire lands in Survey No. 31 and 32 of Kariyammana Agrahara and Survey No. 54 of Devarabisanahalli and in lieu of the said proposal, to allot the aforesaid lands in favour of M/s. Global Tech Private Limited. Pursuant to the request, the second respondent - KIADB proposed to acquire 29 acres 71/2 guntas of land of Devarabisarnahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara as against 12 acres of land sought by the seventh respondent, and the said proposal was submitted to the first respondent. The KIADB, without obtaining prior approval from the State, had proposed to allot the said 29 acres 71/2 guntas, to the seventh respondent, directing them to deposit 40% of the tentative cost of the land - a sum of ' 84,26,250/ -. The State Government, by its communication dated 10.1.2002, directed the second respondent, to consider the request of the seventh respondent only in respect of 12 acres and to retain the remaining land for industrial purposes. Subsequently, the first respondent had issued a notification, declaring the lands measuring 29 acres 71/2 guntas of Kariyammana Agrahara and Devarabisanahalli Villages as industrial area and preliminary notification was also issued in that regard, to acquire 29 acres 71/2 guntas of land of Devarabisanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara Village, including the land bearing Survey No. 30/1. It is also stated that the directors of respondent No. 7, were also the directors of M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited and M/s. Supreme Build -cap Private Limited and that M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited had secured 110 acres of land situated in Devarabisanahalli and Boganahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, and M/s. Supreme Build -cap Private Limited, had secured an extent of 1 million square feet of land, situated at Devarabisanahalli from KIADB. It is stated that respondents 1 to 3 had favoured respondent No. 7 in the matter of allotment of huge extent of lands. The KIADB, by its communication dated 5.102004 addressed to the first respondent, had stated that the seventh respondent and its group of companies were not bona fide industrialists, but they were developers of real estate and they had secured the allotment of the said land by misrepresentation and political influence. The KIADB had not taken any action in allotting the lands acquired for respondent No. 7 though tentative deposit was collected by it. The petitioners had filed objections to the preliminary notification in respect of the above land before the fourth respondent stating that, since the said area was declared as an industrial area, the petitioners intended to establish a Software Park on the land and had formed a partnership firm called M/s. KCP Electronics and a project report was submitted to the KUM and it was recommended to the KIADB to allot land for the same. It is further stated that without considering the objection raised by the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 and 2 had issued final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act. WP 17211/2009 The petitioner claims to be a private limited company registered under the Companies Act 1956. The petitioner had submitted a detailed project proposal to the KUM, for the Development of an Integrated Infrastructure Project for IT Infrastructure at Devarabisanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore Urban District. The proposed development included setting up of a Software Technology Park, Research and Development Centre etc. The SHLCC had considered and approved their project in the meeting held on 18.9.2001. The Managing Director of the Karnataka Bio -Technology and Information Technology Services (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KBITS', for brevity) had issued a formal approval dated 9.10.2001 in terms of the clearance by the Single Window agency as per the request of the KUM and thereby the second respondent - KIADB was requested to take necessary action with regard to acquisition of lands for the implementation of the project of the petitioner. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/ - with the second respondent - KIADB on 18.10.2001 along with copies of project report, memorandum, articles of Association Revenue Sketch etc. And in furtherance of the same, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, wherein the second respondent took upon itself to make land available in Survey nos. 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3, of Devarabisanahalli and Survey Nos. 27, 28, 29/1, 29/2, 30/1 of Kariyammana Agrahara, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 - KIADB initially raised a demand at the rate of Rs. 15,00,000/ - per acre and requested the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,80,000/ - deducting a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/ -, which was already deposited on 16.10.2001, out of Rs. 82,80,000/ - towards the 40% of the tentative cost. And at that stage, it was found that the lands earmarked for the project of the petitioner overlapped with the project of one M/s. Global Tech Private Limited and the petitioner agreed to give up the lands which overlapped with the project of M/s. Global Tech Private Limited, on the condition that the second respondent should make available to the petitioner the lands bearing Survey No. 31 and 32 of Kariyammana Agrahara Village and part of Survey No. 54 of Devarabisanahali. The second respondent accepted the proposal of the petitioner and on measurement of the said survey numbers, it was found that the lands measured approximately 29 acres 71/2 guntas and the second respondent requested the petitioner to deposit 40% of the tentative cost of Rs. 1,34,26,250/ - and after deducting the amount already deposited by the petitioner, it was requested to deposit Rs. 84,26,250/ -. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, declaring the lands as industrial area under section 3(1) of the KIAD Act. A further notification under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act was issued whereby the first respondent had categorically stated that the lands covered under the said survey numbers were required for industrial development and as such, acquisition proceedings were intimated to the general public. Further, the land owners were also informed that no construction activities could be undertaken in the said land and that in the event of any construction activity taking place subsequent the preliminary notification, the land owners would not be entitled to seek for compensation as regards such construction. The petitioner contends that after the publication of a notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, objections were invited from the landlords under the provisions of Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act and some of the landlords filed their objections, which was considered. On hearing them, an order was passed by the SLAO under 28(3) of the KIAD Act on 5.2.2004. And in furtherance of the same, respondent No. 1 had issued a notification under Section 28(4) KIAD Act dated 23.02.2004 acquiring the lands under the various survey numbers stated therein and subsequent to the issue of the said notification, the land owners of the lands covered under Survey No. 54 of Devarabisanahalli and Survey No. 30/2 of Kariyammana Agrahara, challenged the acquisition proceedings, the extent of which was approximately 7 acres 231/2 guntas and the petitioner was unaware of any challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner herein who is the common respondent in all the connected writ petitions hence has sought to question a direction issued by the Department of Commerce and Industries to the Special LAO, KIADB directing the authority to delete lands, for the petitioners' benefit, from the acquisition proceedings. The bare facts of the connected petitions are briefly stated hereunder. WP 4631/2007 It is claimed by the petitioners that they are the owners in possession of land bearing Survey No. 10/1 measuring 0 -17 Guntas of Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, having acquired the same by virtue of the compromise decree in OS No. 8555/95 and he is also the owner in possession of 03 guntas in survey No. 10/12, having purchased the same from Smt. Indiramma and consequently, she has been recognized as the khatedar of the said lands and her name has been mutated in the Mutation Register. The second petitioner is the owner of land bearing survey No. 10/1 measuring 0 -15 guntas, situated at Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, having acquired the same by virtue of the compromise Decree dt. 21/1/96 in OS No. 8555/95 and consequently she has been recognized as Khatedar and her name has been mutated in Mutation Register. It is contended that the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act, declaring the land of the petitioner as industrial area. A Notification was also issued under Section 1(3) of the KIAD Act, applying the provisions of Chapter -VII of the KIAD Act to the lands in question. The intention of acquisition was to enable the second respondent to develop industries and the second respondent has not given opportunity to file objections to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act, declaring the area as industrial area either before its publication or after its publication. However, it was learnt by the petitioner that the acquisition was for the benefit of M/s. Royal Fragrances Limited, the fourth respondent herein and, whom the petitioner suspects to be interested in the land as real estate and it is not expected to be used by the said company to set up any industry. The petitioner contents that the State Government and KIADB has initiated the acquisition proceedings at the behest of the Directorate of Industries and Commerce and the KUF And it was intended that the lands were to be acquired for the benefit of the fourth respondent on the pretext that the respondent had proposed to establish an Information Technology Park. The SHLCC had mechanically accepted the claim of the fourth respondent as to its requirement of 4 lakh square feet of land for the said project at Kariyammana Agrahara and Devarabisanahalli Village. Further, the fourth respondent, as per its project report, required only 12 acres of land and had identified various lands of Devarabisanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara Village, not including the petitioner's land, for the purpose. But, however, the land of the petitioner also having been included in the total extent of 21 acres 2 guntas to be handed over to the fourth respondent, that the present petition is filed. WP 17541/2004 The petitioner in this petition claims to be the owner in possession of lands bearing Survey No. 54/1 measuring 1 acre 21/2 guntas of Devarabisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. A Notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act was issued and duly published in the Karnataka Gazette on 10.12.2001, declaring the area as an 'industrial area'. A notification under Section 1(3) of the KIAD Act and a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1), were simultaneously issued and duly published in the Official Gazette. The Gazette notifications indicated that the lands were being acquired for the benefit of the KIADB. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections to the same and there was no opportunity to file objections to the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act. The petitioner further contends that apart from a total extent of 21 acres 2 guntas in Devarabisanahalli Village, a vast extent of lands of Bellandur (Village, Devarabisanahalli, Kariyammana Agrahara etc., totally measuring more than 650 were sought to be acquired under various other acquisition notifications issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act for the purpose of setting up industries. However, it was learnt by the petitioner that the acquisition is for the benefit of M/s. Royal Fragrances Limited, the fourth respondent herein, whom the petitioner suspects to be only interested in the land as real estate and is not expected to be used by the said company to set up any industry. The petitioner contents that the State Government and KIADB has initiated the acquisition proceedings at the behest of the Directorate of Industries and Commerce and the KUF, it was intended that the lands were to be acquired for the benefit of the fourth respondent on the pretext that the respondent had proposed to establish an Information Technology Park and the SHLCC had mechanically accepted the claim of the fourth respondent as to its requirement of 4 lakh square feet of land for the said project. The petitioner would contend that as per the project report of the fourth respondent, it required only 12 acres of land and had identified various lands of Devarabisanahalli, not including the petitioner's land, for the purpose. But, however, the land of the petitioner also having been included in the total extent of 21 acres 2 guntas to be handed over to the fourth respondent, the petitioner is before this court. WP 17543/2004 It is claimed by the petitioner that he is the owner in possession of lands bearing survey No. 54/3 measuring 27 guntas of Devarabisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. A Notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act was issued and duly published in the Karnataka Gazette on 10.12.2001, declaring the area as an 'industrial area'. A notification under Section 1(3) of the KIAD Act and a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act were simultaneously issued and duly published in the Official Gazette. The Gazette notifications indicated that the lands were being acquired for the benefit of the KIADB. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections to the same, except that there was no opportunity to file objections to the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act. The petitioner further contends that apart from the total extent of 21 acres 2 guntas in Devarabisanahalli Village, a vast extent of lands of Bellandur Village, Devarabisanahalli, Kariamamana Agrahara etc., totally measuring more than 650 acres, were sought to be acquired under various other acquisition notifications issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act for the purpose of setting up industries. However, it was learnt by the petitioner that the acquisition is for the benefit of M/s. Royal Fragrances Limited, the fourth respondent herein, whom the petitioner suspects to be only interested in the land as real estate and is not expected to be used by the said company to set up any industry. The petitioner contents that the State Government and KIADB has initiated the acquisition proceedings at the behest of the Directorate of Industries and Commerce and the KUF and it was intended that the lands were to be acquired for the benefit of the fourth respondent on the pretext that the respondent had proposed to establish an Information Technology Park and the SHLCC had mechanically accepted the claim of the fourth respondent as to its requirement of 4 lakh square feet of land for the said project. The petitioner would contend that as per the project report of the fourth respondent, it required only 12 acres of land and had identified various lands of Devarabisanahalli, not including the petitioner's land, for the purpose. But, however, the land of the petitioner also having been included in proposing to earmark a total extent of 21 acres 2 guntas to be handed over to the fourth respondent, the petitioner questions the bonafides of the competent authorities in this regard. It is in this back ground that the present petition is filed. WP 17545/2004 It is claimed by the petitioner that he is the owner in possession of lands bearing survey No. 54/6 measuring one acre and 9 guntas and Survey No. 54/8 measuring 1 acre and 5 guntas, of Devarabisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. A Notification Under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (Herein after referred to as the 'KIADB Act', for brevity) was issued and duly published in the Karnataka Gazette on 10.12.2001, declaring the area as an Industrial area'. Notifications under Section 1(3) of the KIAD Act, applying the provisions of Chapter - VII of the Act of the "lands and a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1), were simultaneously issued and duly published in the Official Gazette. The Gazette notifications indicated that the lands were being acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (Herein after referred to as the 'KIADB', for brevity). The petitioner is said to have filed his objections to the same, except that there was no opportunity to file objections to the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act. The petitioner has stated that apart from a total extent of 21 acres 2 guntas in Devarabisanahalli Village, a vast extent of lands of Bellandur Village, Devarabisanahalli, Kariamamana Agrahara etc., totally measuring more than 650 acres under various other acquisition notifications issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act for the purpose of setting up industries. However, it was thereafter learnt by the petitioner that the acquisition is for the benefit of M/s. Royal Fragrances Limited, the fourth respondent herein, whom the petitioner suspects to be only interested in the land as real estate and is not expected to be used by the said company to set up any industry. W.P. 30979/2004 The petitioners claim that they are agriculturists and permanent residents of Kariyammana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, K.R. Pura Taluk, Bangalore District. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of land measuring 1 acre 371/2 guntas, being portion of survey No. 30/2 situated at Kariyammana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. It is further contended that the comprehensive development plan shows that the land of the petitioner comes under the residential zone and the said land is attached to Bhovi Hatti, Kariyammana Agrahara and Devarabisanahalli villages, at a distance of one kilometre and the land under acquisition and the surrounding area is being built up and developed. The petitioner stated that the land in question is a well developed garden land, consisting of coconut trees, certain jungle trees, a pump house etc., and the income from the said land is the only source for the petitioners. Respondent No. 7 is a private limited company having its registered office at Delhi. On 29.08.2001, the seventh respondent had submitted its proposal for establishment of a Software/IT park as a single unit complex seeking acquisition through KIADB and to provide 12 acres of land in Survey Nos. 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3 of Devarabisanahalli Village, and Survey Nos. 27, 28, 29/1, 29/2 and 30/1 of Kariammana Agrahara Village, Bangalore South Taluk, for their proposed project. Their project was approved by the third respondent - SHLCC, at its meeting held on 18.09.2001. Respondent No. 3 submitted its report to the State Government for further action, which in turn forwarded the report to the second respondent - KIADB, to take action, to acquire the proposed lands. The fourth respondent - SLAO, KIADB, had proposed to acquire 22 acres 21/2 guntas as against 12 acres, requested by the seventh respondent - M/s. Royal Fragrances Private Limited and the said proposal was submitted to the first respondent. The seventh respondent, by its communication dated 22.11.2001, requested the second respondent -KIADB to acquire "lands in Survey No. 31 and 32 of Kariyammana Agrahara and Survey No. 54 of Devarabisanahalli, and in lieu of the said proposal to allot the aforesaid lands in favour of M/s. Global Tech Private Limited. Pursuant to the request, the second respondent - KIADB proposed to acquire 29 acres 71/2 guntas of land situated at Devarabisanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara as against 12 acres of land sought by the seventh respondent, and the said proposal was submitted to the first respondent. The KIADB, without obtaining prior approval from the State Government, had proposed to allot the said 29 acres 71/2 guntas, to the seventh respondent, directing them to deposit 40% of the tentative land cost, in a sum of Rs. 84,26,250/ -. The State Government, by its communication dated 10.1.2002, directed the second respondent, to consider the request of the seventh respondent only in respect of 12 acres and to retain the remaining land for industrial purpose. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a notification declaring the land measuring 29 acres 71/2 guntas of Kariyammana Agrahara and Devarabisanahalli Villages as Industrial Area, and simultaneously, the preliminary notification was issued by the first respondent with a proposal to acquire 29 acres 71/2 guntas of land of Devarabisanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara Village, including the land bearing Survey No. 30/1, for the purpose of industrial establishment. The petitioners further contend that the directors of respondent No. 7, were also the directors of M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited and M/s. Supreme Build -cap Private Limited and that M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited had secured 110 acres of land situated at Devarabisanahalli and Boganahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, and M/s. Supreme Build -cap Private Limited, had secured an extent of 1 million square feet of land, situated at Devarabisanahalli from KIADB. It is claimed that respondents - 1 to 3 have shown undue favour to the seventh respondent in the allotment of huge extent of lands. The KIADB, by its letter dated 5.10.2004, to the first respondent, had stated that the seventh respondent and its group of companies were not bona fide industrialists, but they were developers of real estate and they had secured the allotment of the said land by misrepresentation and political influence. The KIADB had not taken any action in allotting the lands acquired for respondent No. 7, though tentative deposit was collective. The petitioners contend that they had' filed objections for the preliminary notification in respect of acquisition of the said land, but the fourth respondent, without considering the abjections raised by the petitioners, had issued the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, acquiring the land bearing Survey No. 32 of Kariyammana Agrahara, among other lands. It is also stated that as against 109 acres 28 guntas, only 105 acres 281/2 guntas was proposed for acquisition without valid reasons and the deletion of the portion of land from acquisition is said to be done to favour some persons. The petitioners have stated that, the first respondent had issued certain guidelines to the KIADB in the matter of acquisition of lands for the purpose of industrial development and since the KIADB had failed to follow the guidelines, the first respondent had issued a Circular dated 3.3.2007, wherein it was clearly indicated that the KIADB should not acquire the land, which consisted of buildings, but the KIADB, with utter disregard to the such a direction, had acquired the land in question which consisted of various residential buildings. It is further contended that respondent No. 1, on objections raised by the land owners, had deleted the land bearing Survey No. 54, under notification dated 7.8.2003 and lands in survey Nos. 31/1 and 31/2 under notification dated 28.2.2004. It is also stated that lands in Survey nos. 27, 28/1 and 28/2 were deleted under a notification dated 5.5.2004. The petitioners had filed objections to the preliminary notification stating all the developments made over the land and also informing the existence of a temple on the said land, but the fourth respondent without considering the objections, had submitted a report dated 5.2.2004 to the first respondent, to issue the final notification. Pursuant to the report submitted by the fourth respondent - SLAO, KIADB, the final notification dated 28.2.2004 was issued by the first respondent - the State. The petitioner along with the owners of land in Survey No. 32, had approached the first respondent with an application dated 30.5.2006 seeking deletion or re -grant of land in question, since similarly situated lands adjacent to the lands in question had been deleted from the acquisition proceedings, that the case of the petitioners should also be treated similarly. Therefore, the State Government had called for the report from the KIADB in that regard.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the rival contentions and the arguments in the petition in W.P. 17539/2004 is addressed, as the answer to the rival contentions would equally apply to the connected petitions.

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3, on the other hand, would contend as follows: That the acquisition undertaken by the State government was in keeping with its Information Technology Policy. Under the said policy, the state had invited investment from entrepreneurs while extending certain benefits and facilities. The policy had recognized the need of private investment in the creation of infrastructure. The government was thus encouraging the creation of IT parks. The fourth respondent had approached the state government with a project to set up an IT Park. As per procedure the same was placed before a High Level Committee, constituted by the State Government in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, vested with the responsibility of hastening the process of clearance of the project with the minimum of bureaucratic delays. The State Level Agency had cleared the project of the fourth respondent as on 18 -9 -2001. The object acquisition of land under the provisions of the KIAD Act was in order to ensure that the project fell within the supervision and control of the KIADB, instead of being subject to the necessary prior approvals of the several authorities such as the Revenue, the Bangalore Development Authority and other statutory bodies. The allotment of land in favour of the entrepreneur is on a lease basis. The implementation of the project is a must for otherwise the land would automatically be resumed in accordance with the proposal. There is a prohibition against alienation by the allottee. Payment of compensation to the land owner is ensured without any discrimination. It is under these circumstances that the land in question was notified for acquisition pursuant to the application of the fourth respondent. It is further contended that under the amendment to the KIAD Act, by Act No. 17 of 1997, specially providing for acquisition of land for the purpose of infrastructural projects. The proposed establishment of an IT park is certainly in consonance with that objective and hence the allegations of violation of law and mala fides in the acquisition process is unfair and without basis. It is asserted that the issuance of notifications simultaneously under Section 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1), respectively, is not prohibited in law. The acquisition process is given wide publicity and is not surreptitious. The petitioner has participated at the enquiry proceedings pursuant to the notifications. It is contended that the notification under Section 3(1) is conditional legislation and hence the question of issuance of notice or giving an opportunity of hearing is not envisaged in respect of the same. The allegations of whimsical acquisition of land is denied. The further allegations of mala fides and non -application of mind are also denied. It is pointed out that the beneficiary or the allottee of the acquired land being indicated in the notifications for acquisition is not contemplated under the Act. The initial request of the fourth respondent with reference to lands bearing certain survey numbers of Devarabisanahalli when actually measured exceeded 22 acres, but since certain items of those lands were already earmarked for some other project, alternative lands were identified and the fourth respondent was called upon to remit the cost of the entire extent of 29 acres 7.5 guntas. At any rate it is contended that the petitioner could not sit in judgment of the need or competence of the said respondent. It is pointed out that the exclusion of certain lands from the acquisition is not on account of any favouritism, but on account of the fact that the land owners therein had obtained change of land user and had diverted the land for other purposes, it was just and necessary in the wisdom of the State to exclude those lands. This by itself would not render the acquisition bad in law. The wild allegations of there being a unholy nexus as between the respondents is without any basis. The acquisition proceedings are in strict compliance with the due process of law. Therefore the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice, colourable exercise of power, etc. is not tenable. The counsel for the fourth respondent in turn would contend that the said respondent is part of a group of companies, with extensive experience in infrastructure and developmental activities. It had submitted a proposal pursuant to the Global Investors meet - convened by the State Government, to set up an IT Park. The total outlay envisaged was Rs. 47.5 crore, which would generate direct and indirect employment for almost two thousand individuals. The State Level Single Window Agency is said to have approved the proposal. The Karnataka Udyog Mitra, the nodal agency to aid implementation of the proposal, had called upon the first and second respondents to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of land for the project. This required the fourth respondent to deposit a initial sum of Rs. 50 lakhs, with the second respondent, which was complied with. The fourth respondent was then called upon to deposit a further sum - the said respondent had then deposited further amount, totaling in all to Rs. 1.34 crore. It is pursuant to the same that the acquisition proceedings were initiated. Apart from the above, the fourth respondent has incurred other substantial expenses in furtherance of its proposal. It is contended that immediately on issuance of the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, several land owners, whose lands were proposed to be acquired file writ petitions before this court, in WP 9339 - 9351/2002. The fourth respondent was a party to the same. The said petitions were dismissed on merits on 19 -9 -2002. The petitioners were, however, granted a further opportunity to file additional objections to the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner had also availed of the opportunity to file additional objections and was heard, it is only after the objections were considered and overruled that a final notification was issued and further proceedings were taken.