N. Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the land owner challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to quash the notification issued for acquisition of his land.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition.

3. The subject matter of this proceedings is 7 guntas of land in Sy.No.3/1 situated at Yamalur Village, Bangalore East Taluk. The petitioner is the owner of the said land and he is also cultivating the said land. Annexure-A, the RTC for the year 2002-03 substantiates the said fact. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966, for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for acquiring 4 acres 15 guntas of land in Kempapura Village, Varthur Hobli. However the said acquisition proceedings were not proceeded further. Again on 12.12.2002, yet another notification came to be issued under Section 28(1) of the Act, notifying the petitioner’s land, i.e., 7 guntas in Sy.No.3/1 of Yamalur village and another 25 guntas of land in Kempapura village, in all 33 guntas. After service of notice of the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner filled his objections on 15.03.2003 as per Annexure-D. It was specifically contended that the proposed road to be formed in the land notified for acquisition is not for the benefit of the public at large and it is for the benefit of owner of M/s. Harshavardhana Hotel, at whose instance the acquisition proceedings has been initiated. When the land bearing Sy.No.18/4 situated on the Eastern side of his property was also notified which belongs to one P. Ramachandra Reddy, because of the influence brought by him, the said proceedings were dropped. He contended that he has grown coconut and other valuable trees in the land. The proposed acquisition causes immense hardship to him and his family. In view of the fact that acquisition is already dropped in respect of the land of P. Ramachandra Reddy, on the same grounds, they may drop the proposed acquisition in respect of the petitioner also.

4. After considering the said objections, the acquiring authority over-ruled the objections on the ground that the said land is required for industrial purpose and proceeded to issue notification under Section 28(4) of the Act on 07.08.2003. Thereafter a notice was issued on 20.08.2003 for assessing the value of the malkis found in the said land. It is thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition challenging the said acquisition.

5. The third respondent M/s. Palmspring Resorts, filed an application to implead themselves in the said writ petition. In this application they have specifically stated that the land in question is being acquired to provide approach road for the 4 acres of land belonging to the impleading applicant which is behind the land in question. By suppressing the material facts and misleading the Court, the petitioner has obtained a stay in the above matter. Therefore as the said order adversely affects the rights of the impleading applicant, he wanted to be impleaded in the matter. Accordingly, he was impleaded.

6. The second respondent filed statement of objections contending that there is no legal impediment in the acquisition of the garden land for the purpose of industrial development. The land in question is acquired for the purpose of industrial development. Even if in a particular place where a single industry is established, the same would answer the definition of an ‘industrial estate’ within Section 2(7) of the KIAD Act. The averment that the acquisition is resorted on the influence of the private entrepreneur and the price has gone up, is misleading. The allegation of use of utilization of public machinery for private purpose is denied. The failure of the industrial entrepreneurs to hold private negotiations with the petitioner, even if it is true, does not vitiate the acquisition. Therefore they so