JUDGMENT (S.R. Bannurmath, J.)

The appellants in W.A. No. 288 of 2006 were respondents 2 and 4 in W.P. No. 4148 of 2005, respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 1058 of 2005 and respondent 2 in W.P. No. 1393 of 2005. The appellant in W.A. No. 289 of 2006 was respondent 3 in W.P. No. 4148 of 2005 and W.P. No. 1393 of 2005. The petitioners in the said writ petitions had questioned the notification dated 27-1-2004 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIADB Act' for short) whereunder the lands in Sy. Nos. 110 (3 acres 15 guntas), 112 (3 acres 38 guntas), 113/1 (00-07 guntas), 113/2 (00-07 guntas), 113/3 (1 acre 2 guntas), 113/4 (00-23 guntas), 114 (1 acre 25 guntas), 115 (1 acre 35 guntas), 116 (1 acre 14 guntas), 126 (1 acre 20 guntas) and 127 (00-20 guntas), situate at Mahadevapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, were declared as Industrial Area. Further, the notification dated 4-12-2004 issued under Section 28(4) and the notices under Section 28(6) of the KIADB Act were also questioned and consequential relief was also sought. The learned Single Judge on considering the rival contentions has allowed the writ petitions by order dated 24-1-2006. The appellants in both the above appeals claiming to be aggrieved by the said order have filed these appeals.

2. We have heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective appellants, Sri G.S. Visweswara and Sri S. Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel and Sri G. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the respective respondents.

3. The learned Single Judge while disposing the writ petition has raised points for consideration and has answered the same seriatim. The learned Counsel while assailing the order had referred to the same in the sequence of the points raised. Hence, the relevant arguments addressed and the decisions cited would be referred as and when such point is discussed. However, one additional aspect which requires consideration is that the respondents have raised the question of maintainability of these appeals by filing an application and lengthy arguments are addressed. Hence, the said issue requires to be considered at the outset.

4. Sri Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel contended that the State Government which is the acquiring authority has not filed any appeal Therefore, it has accepted the order of the learned Single Judge and as such the correctness or otherwise cannot be examined at the instance of the beneficiary or the KIADB. It is contended that unlike Land Acquisition Act, 1894 beneficiary can challenge orders quashing the acquisition proceedings, the same is not applicable to acquisition under the KIADB Act as the concept under KIADB Act is different as compared to the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Senior Counsel taking us through the relevant provisions of the KIADB Act starting from the Preamble till the requirement under Section 28(6), contended that the entire satisfaction is that of the State Government and it is only with regard to Section 28(8), the KIADB steps in for the first time. Though the appellants have stated in the appeal memo that the KIADB is a delegatee of the Government, Rule 14 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Rules, 1966 does not provide for delegation of powers under Section 28(1) and (4). Section 38(c) of the Act, and the Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1977 were also referred and contended that all administrative decisions should be under the order of the Minister-in-charge. Even the KIADB functions under the directions of the Government under Section 17 of the Act and as such impleading of the State Government as the first respondent is contrary to the interest of the Government. Till the transfer of land, the KIADB would not have any right and till allotment process is complete the beneficiary would not acquire right. In this regard, the decisions in the case o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document