The power of acquisition under the Industrial Areas Development Act cannot be controlled by the provisions of the Planning Act.

( 1 ) THE facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows: on 1-11-1965 notification under Section 4-A (1) of the Karnataka town and Country planning Act, 1961 was issued including Hoodi village where the land forming the subject of this appeal is situated in Planning District 8c. this was classified as agricultural and residential use only. However, on 24-8-1984 a notification under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial areas Development Act, 1966 came to be issued declaring Hoodi village as an Industrial Area for the purpose of the said Act and on the same dale another notification was issued under Section 1 (3) of the said Act specifying the areas mentioned in the schedule making the Act applicable. On 21-9-1984 preliminary notification under Section 28 (1) of the said Act was issued notifying the intention to acquire the land. the said notification was published in the Karnataka government Gazette on 11-10-1984. the Comprehensive; development Plan was approved by the Government which approval is required under Section 22 of the Karnataka town and country Planning Act, 1961. thereafter, on 13-7-1988 a notice was issued under Sect ion 28 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development act calling upon the appellant to show cause why the land should not be acquired. the appellant filed his objections on 14-10-1988. On 22-9-1989 the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board rejected these objections. As a consequence thereof, on 22/23-11-1989 the final notification under Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial areas Development Act was issued notifying the acquisition of the land. It was under these circumstances, the acquisition proceedings were challenged unsuccessfully before the learned single Judge in W. P, No. 4263 of 1990. the main contention urged in the writ petition was that there is conflict between the Karnataka town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Industrial Areas development Act which would disable the Government from acquiring this land having regard to the fact that the land was classified as agricultural and residential use only under the Planning Act. One other point that was raised was the delay in issuing of the notification under Section 28 (1) of the Industrial Areas development Act and the final notification has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Both these points were rejected. Hence the appeal.

( 2 ) BEFORE us, Mr. S. Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the appellant, after having taken us through the various provisions of the Karnalaka town and Country Planning Act, ,1961, would submit as follows:1) the acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act must conform to the Development Plan. Where, therefore, the development Plan has been approved by the government under Section 22 of the Planning act, the use of the land as agricultural and residential has become final. Under those circumstances, it cannot be put to the use by an industry. 2) there is long delay between Section 28 (1) notification and the final notification or at any rate, even the issue of notice under Section 28 (2) took place in 1988. the four years delay has caused great prejudice to the appellant. Such a prejudice can be effectively voiced in suitable cases is what has been held in Laxininathalah m. N. v State of Karnataka, 1984 (2) Kar. L. J. 272. 3) the Land Acquisition Officer has not properly applied his mind to the factual aspect of the matter. He has gone on the assumption that this area has been declared to be an industrial area. 4) Lastly it is submitted that having regard to the policy decision adumbrated in the notification S. O. 629 (e), dated 26lh September, 1989 not to locale any industry within a radius of 50 Kilometres of Bangalore City and having regard to the fact that several other lands have been deleted from acquisition, the same treatment shall be afforded to the appellant as well:

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for responden