C. THIMMEGOWDA AND K.C. NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be an agriculturist and owner of land bearing survey No. 11/2 of Beeragondanahalli, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, measuring 3 acres 4 guntas. The said lands are mango gardens and the petitioner has produced the RTC extracts in respect of the same.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the KIADB, who has filed statement of objections, would deny that the petitioner had filed any objections to the preliminary notification and therefore, is precluded from seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this remote point of time when the petitioner had not filed any objections.

(3.) WHILE , by way of reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that it is incorrect to state that the petitioner had not filed any objections to the preliminary notification, but on the other hand, the petitioner had challenged the preliminary notification itself in a writ petition in WP 31970/2009, which was disposed of with a specific direction that the petitioner was entitled to file his objections to the notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, which the authority would consider in an inquiry under Sub -section (3) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act and that after the completion of the proceedings, if the petitioner was still aggrieved, he could question the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the present petition is in line with the observations of this court and in the background that the petitioner's objections have never been considered. From the material on record, it is clear that the respondent - KIADB has not placed any material to demonstrate that the petitioner's case stood on a different footing from the land owners, whose lands have been exempted from the acquisition proceedings, on the ground that they are fertile agricultural lands, which could not be acquired for industrial development in the light of the Government Circular referred to hereinabove nor is there any material to show that there was a spot inspection conducted in respect of the petitioner's land. Therefore, inspite of there being requirement of these elementary steps in seeking to acquire the petitioner's land and in the face of the circumstance that adjacent properties have been deleted from the acquisition proceedings on the very grounds which the petitioner also seeks to urge, it would be wholly unfair and unjust to afford a different treatment to the petitioner.