JANET SHAKUNTHALA MABEN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.13006/2007 (KIADB), the unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed these intra-Court appeals.

(2.) The records reveal that the appellants are owners of certain portions of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.22/1P3, 22/5, 22/7, 36/7, 126, 122/OP1, 18/5P2, 22/1P2, 22/2, 22/3, 22/4, 22/1P6, 36/3, 37/8, 37/9, 23/3, 28/7 and 28/15 situated at Santhur village of Udupi taluk; The said lands alongwith various other lands were sought to be acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ('KIADB' for short) by issuing notification (preliminary notification) dated 21.5.1998 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short) for establishing 'Ash Pond' for the purpose of storing ash generated out of a mega power project of 1015 Mega Watts established by Nagarjuna Power Corporation Limited (Respondent No.3 herein); totally an area of 509.76 acres was notified under the said preliminary notification dated 21.5.1998; notices were issued to all the land owners whose lands were sought to be acquired; objections were filed by some of the land owners; after holding enquiry, the order came to be passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act concluding that an area of 216.44 acres needs to be acquired; Ultimately, the notification (final notification) under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued on 9.10.2006 confining the acquisition of lands to an extent of 132.36 acres; the lands of the appellants herein/writ petitioners also come within the said extent of 132.36 acres which are acquired under the final notification; the total extent owned by the appellants/writ petitioners involved in these writ appeals is 9.84 acres only; all other land losers who have lost lands to an extent of about 122 acres have given their consent for acquisition of the lands; the award was passed with the consent of such land owners and all such land owners who have lost their lands have accepted the compensation by consent. However as mentioned supra, only these appellants questioned the acquisition notification by filing the Writ Petition No.13006/2007. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 4.2.2009 dismissed the writ petition and consequently confirmed the acquisition notifications. The order of the learned Single Judge is appealed in these writ appeals by the unsuccessful writ petitioners.

(3.) Heard Sri Clifton D. Rozario, learned advocate for appellants 1 to 6 and learned counsel for respondents. 3A. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that the notices are not issued to the appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer ('LAO' for short) before conducting the enquiry; the objections filed by some of the appellants are not considered by the LAO effectively inasmuch as he has not applied his mind to the facts of the case while rejecting the objections; While passing the order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act after conducting enquiry, the LAO has observed that the permission and clearance by the State and the Central Government authorities will have to be taken by the beneficiary subsequently at the time of establishing the project; As a matter of fact, the beneficiary ought to have taken necessary permission or clearance from the State and the Central Government authorities for establishing 'Ash Pond' prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings.