C KENCHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation by the inhabitants of hoodi, pattandur, nallurahalli and kundalahalli villages of k. r. puram hobli, Bangalore south taluk, questioning the validity of the notification issued under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka industrial area development act (hereinafter called the 'act') insofar as it relates to lands bearing sy. Nos. 29 to 39 of kundalahalli village, sy. No. 107 of pattandur agrahara village. They have sought for a writ of certiorari for quashing and/or setting aside the order of allotment dated 20-9-1999 made by respondent 2 in respect of sy. No. 152 of hoodi village; sy. Nos. 80 and 81 of nallurhalli village and sy. Nos. 34 and 35 of kundalahalli village in favour of respondent 3. They have also sought for a further direction to restrain respondent 2 from handingover the aforesaid lands to respondent 3.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are residents of the aforesaid villages and they are agriculturists. Their case is that the lands bearing sy. Nos. 79 and 80 of nallurahalli village are gomal lands. Sy. No. 81 is a part of green belt in the comprehensive development plan (cdp) and sy. No. 34 are reserved for residential purposes. their case is that the gomal land, if converted into industrial area, the villagers will lose the land reserved for grazing their cattle and the same will cause hardship to the villages as well as cattle. Further, there will be an adverse effect on the environment of the villages as industrial area increases. Their prayer is that the gomal lands and lands reserved for residential purposes in green belt should not be acquired and allotted for any non-agricultural purpose including industrial purpose. The lands earmarked for a specific purpose in the revenue records and cdp should be continued to be used as such to maintain pollution-free Air and ecological balance, keeping in view the health of the villagers who are residing there. Otherwise, if the entire land is acquired and industrial area is developed, it will not only deprive the villagers of the gomal land, but also deprive them of the pollution-free Air and water. The deprivation of the same is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of india. It is stated that the authorities have violated the zonal regulations in allotting the land to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the allotment is made hurriedly without following the regular procedure and therefore, the same is illegal and arbitrary. They have filed this petition on the ground that without hearing the affected parties, notification under Section 3 (1) of the act has been issued. Therefore, they have sought for quashing of the said notification insofar as it relates to the aforesaid survey numbers and for a direction to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from converting the lands in question for any industrial purpose and to retain the lands for use for which they are reserved for.

(3.) RESPONDENT 2 has filed objections denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated that it is a fact that the said survey numbers are gomal lands and form green belt under the cdp, but the said lands are not used as gomal lands as urbanisation has spread in the area and number of industries have come up in the area. They have ceased to be pasture lands. The 2nd respondent has got ample power to issue notification under Section 3 (1) of the act and to acquire the land under Section 28 of the act and take possession for industrial purpose. respondent 2 has followed the entire procedure in issuing the notification and acquiring the lands. Even when allotting to 3rd respondent, the procedure laid down under law is followed. The 3rd respondent is going to establish only a research and development project and not for any manufacturing process which will emit any polluted AIR or create polluted atmosphere. The land allotted to 3rd respondent is out of sy. No. 80 which is a government land to an extent of 20 acres only and the remaining land is acquired by the 2nd respondent from private owners. if the petitioners have any objection, it is open for them to file the same when the proceedings under Section 28 of the act are initiated. There is no provision under Section 3 (1) of the act for issuing notice to any individual or public before the declaration is published under section 3 (1) of the act. Respondent 2 has followed the entire procedure meticulously and there is no violation of procedure or any irregularity in the declaration and allotment of land to respondent 3.