The determination of market value for acquired land should consider the date of approval of the award by the State Government, and the government should protect the interests of land-losers in industrial or business acquisitions.

B.S. PATIL, J.-Petitioners were the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 78 of Arehalli Village in Doddaballapur Taluk totally measuring 12 acres 6 guntas.

2. The case of the petitioners is that large extent of land has been acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, 'the KIADB') for industrial purpose including the land of the petitioners. Notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 22.05.2005, followed by the final declaration issued under Section 28(4) of the Act on 01.03.2005. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings by filing W.P. No. 11327/2006. In the said writ petition, petitioners had made it clear that they had no objection for acquisition of land for industrial purpose, but their grievance was only directed against the respondent not leaving adequate space in between the industrial plots and the village consisting of dwelling houses, so as to ensure that the industries do not cause pollution of all kinds. The said writ petition was disposed on 19.12.2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners to leave adequate space of 100 meters. between the village boundary and the industries to be set up.

3. Pursuant to this order, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, considered the representation of the petitioners and passed an order on 25.10.2008 holding that there was no possibility of any pollution. This order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was challenged in W.P. No. 3601/2010. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide Annexure-K order dated 24.05.2012 making it clear that no specific order could be passed in the matter as it was pointed out that industries had already come up and that such of the industries which were established were not parties to the said writ petition. However, it was observed that KIADB should not have formed an industrial area without leaving the lung space and that the Pollution Control Board and the Industries & Commerce Department should desist from permitting establishment of industries adjoining the villages. In case, the villagers were to approach, they were directed not to permit industries at least within 100 meters from the village limits.

4. On going through the previous litigation instituted by the petitioners, it emerges that challenge made to the acquisition has been negatived and certain observations are made by this Court to ensure that establishment of industries in the vicinity of the village should not lead to pollution and health hazard.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, confronted with these developments in the past culminating in the orders passed by this Court, submits that he is only confining the grievance of the petitioners to prayer 3 which is an alternative prayer made seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith pay compensation for the lands acquired from the petitioners by fixing the date of the award notice dated 29.06.2012 as the date for determination of the market value of the land.

6. It is in this background, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties only in respect of prayer No. 3 as the other reliefs have been given up and are not required to be considered.

7. On careful perusal of the pleadings and the contentions advanced by both the parties, I find from the stand taken in the statement of objections filed by the KIADB that a draft award came to be passed by the Special land Acquisition Officer as back as on 21/27.11.2007 in respect of the petitioners. This award was sent for approval of the Government. But the same was approved by the Government only on 10.05.2012 and it is thereafter award notice was sent to the petitioners. It is thus clear from the very stand taken by the KIADB that there was a delay of nearly 5 years in the approval of the draft award which has