( 1 ) IN these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for quashing the notification dated 20-4-1989 published in the Official Gazette of 9-11-1989 issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) IN Writ Petitions Nos. 533 to 535 of 1990, the petitioners have also sought for quashing the notification dated 11-7-1980 issued under sub-section (1) of S. 28 of the Act.

( 3 ) UNDER the notification dated 11-7-l980, several lands were proposed for acquisition for the purpose of Auto Complex. The owners and persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition filed their objections. A notification under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act was also issued. However, that was challenged in a batch of writ petitions before this Court 15481 to 15483, 17985-17986, 15004-15008, 11916 and 5782 of l985. This court allowed the writ petitions by the order dated 21-3-1986 and quashed the notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act and further directed to continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was interrupted by issuing fresh notices as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. Thus the notification issued under sub-section (1) of S. 28 of the Act was not disturbed.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, notices were served on the objectors and the same was also published in the local newspapers as well as in Prajavani and Indian Express. After hearing the objectors, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the order on 26-12-1988 under sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act. Pursuant to that, a declaration was made under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act as per notification dated 20-4-1989 bearing No. YQ 67/ SPQ 89 published in the Official Gazette of 9-1 1-1989.

( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act is vitiated because the order passed under sub-sec. (3) of Section 28 of the Act is not in accordance with law in as much as all the objections raised by the objectors have not been considered. Reliance was placed on the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act.

( 6 ) IT is also further contended that when vast extent of Government Land is available within the close vicinity (3 Kms.) from the lands in question and on the earlier occasion, the Land Acquisition Officer in his letter dated 10-10-1986 produced as Annexure-H in W. P. No. 555 of 1990 opined that it would not be appropriate to acquire the lands in question when an extent of 400 acres belonging to the Government is available within 3 kilometers from the lands in question and the negotiations had been going on for transfer of the said land to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, and out of that, an extent of 50 acres could be allotted for Auto Complex.

( 7 ) IN addition to these contentions several other contentions are also urged. But we do not consider it necessary to consider those contentions because in our view the aforesaid two contentions are sufficient for deciding these writ petitions.

( 8 ) SRI Narayanappa, learned Counsel appearing for the Board has made available the records. On going through the order dated 26-12-1988 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer delegated with the power under sub-section (3) of the Section 28 of the Act, we are satisfied that the order does not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act. In the earlier portion of the order, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has stated about the proceedings relating to the previous writ petitions to which we have already made a reference, and publication of the notification in the various newspapers, and issuing of notices to objectors. In the second portion of the order, he has summarised the objections raised by the objectors. In the last two paragraphs, he has given hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document