Judgement

J. S. VERMA, J. :- Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are against dismissal of two writ petitions by a common order dated 14th July, 1995, passed by a Division Berch of the High Court of Karnataka. The challenge made in these writ petitions was to the validity of the notification dated 16-7-1994, issued under Section 4(1)read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for Short the Act) and the Notification dated 22-8-1994 issued under Section 6 thereof by State of Karnataka for acquisition of 11 acres 36 gunthas of land in Pattandur Agrahara Village, Whitefield, Bangalore Taluk, Bangalore, belonging to the appellants. The appellants contended that these notifications are invalid apart from the fact that the use of the acquired land by them is beneficial to the society and not merely of private gain to the appellants. The several grounds on which validity of the acquisition was challenged have been rejected by the High Court. The nature of use of the acquired land by the appellants does not require any further reference since the validity of the acquisition does not depend on it.

3. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant, contended primarily that the acquisition is for a private limited company and not for a public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on account of which the special powers in case of urgency in Section 17 of the Act could not be invoked and, therefore, the provision of Section 5A requiring the hearing of objections cannot be dispensed with. On this basis, it was contended that the notification in exercise of the power under Section 17(4) and the subsequent declaration made under Section 6 of the Act is invalid. In support of this submission learned counsel for the appellant referred to certain documents which admittedly indicate the purpose of the acquisition. The construction made of the documents by Shri Shanti Bhushan is that the acquisition is not for the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short the Board) but for the private limited company known as Information Technology Park (Pvt.) Ltd., in which the Board has 20% equity shares. In reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Ashok Desai contended that the acquisition is for the public purpose of establishment of a technological park of undoubted national importance, which is a joint venture project, involving three collaborators of which the Government of Karnataka is one acting through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that these documents read as a whole, indicated the nature of joint venture and the kind of project for which this acquisition has been made, 672 which makes it clear that it is not merely for the purpose of a company unrelated to the specified public purpose. The documents with reference to which this point has to be determined are relied on by both sides.

4. Admittedly, a large tract of land contiguous to the area acquired by the impugned notifications had already been acquired by the said Board under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short Karnataka Act), which also provides for acquisition of land for the Board. that area was found to be inadequate of the project on account of which the contiguous disputed area has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The fact that the larger area acquired earlier for the Board is meant for the said project of setting up the Technology Park has not been disputed. It is also not disputed that present acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is to meet the need due to the inadequacy of the earlier acquisition made by the Board. In fact a separate argument of learned counsel for the appellant, adverted to later, is that the acquisition of the present area should also be made only under the Karnataka Act of 1966 instead of the Land acquisition Act since the Karnataka Act gives greater opportunity to the ow