Point of Law; Executive is expected to follow the 'Rule of law'. It cannot be gainsaid that in several cases, where fauity executive decisions are implemented lead to irreversible eventualities as in this case and the citizen shall be compelled to silently endure the ill effects of such decisions. If Civil servants act strictly as per Rule of Law the orders resulting from such exercise would need no interference in judicial review.

ORDER :

Jindal Alluminium Ltd., and M/s. Prestige South City holdings have jointly presented this writ petition with a prayer inter alia to:

• Quash three impugned notifications dated 30.06.2020 issued under Section 1(3), Section 3(1), and Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966['KIAD Act' for short]; and

• Notification dated 05.09.2020 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, all issued by Respondent No.1 (vide Annexure A, B, C and W respectively).

2. Summary of facts averred in the writ petition and submissions of Shri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Advocate are:

• First petitioner is the absolute owner of land measuring 33 acres 25 guntas in Sy. Nos. 29/2, 28/4, 31/1, 31/2, 36/1, 32/1 and 32/2 of Chikkabidarakallu Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and site bearing No.332 measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 62 feet on the eastern side and 63 feet on the western side in Ravi Kirloskar Layout;

• During 2016, petitioners have entered into a Joint Development Agreement to develop the land and to construct residential flats. Second petitioner has spent about Rs.540 Crores for the development of the project;

• In the year 2016, The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, [Respondent No.4; 'BMRCL' for short], has acquired 3850 sq. mtrs. (38 guntas) belonging to the first petitioner;

• On 30.06.2020, State Government have issued Notifications under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act['KIAD Act' for short], proposing to acquire 1863.19 sq. mtrs. of land of Chikkabidarakallu Village and 44.27 sq. mtrs. in Srikantapura Village. Out of that, 1503.67 sq. mtrs. in Sy. No.28/4 of Chikkabidarakallu village, belongs to first petitioner and it is part of the apartment project. On 01.07.2020, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board['KIADB' for short] has issued two notices as per Annexures -M & N under Section 28(2) of KIAD Act, calling upon the petitioner to file objections, if any. The said notices were served on 08.07.2020. First petitioner has replied on 09.07.2020 stating that the buildings were already constructed on the lands in question; first petitioner has already surrendered 3344 sq. mtrs. of prime land for Metro station without any demure; and it desired to know the actual purpose for which the land was again sought to be acquired and requested for a sketch of the land proposed for acquisition;

• First petitioner, also wrote to BMRCL on 27.07.2020. It wrote a second letter to KIADB on 03.08.2020. Neither KIADB nor BMRCL gave any reply;

• On 03.08.2020, a sham hearing was conducted and an order was passed on 17.08.2020. Thereafter, on 18.08.2020, BMRCL has replied to first petitioner's letter dated 03.08.2020 stating that Metro rail project is committed to provide first and last mile connectivity and the proposed land was sought to be acquired to provide connectivity to residents of the villages;

• There is no application of mind on the part of SLAO and the Government. The decision is arbitrary;

• There was no effective hearing;

• In the order passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, petitioner's objections have not been considered;

• There are two existing roads on the eastern side of the project connecting the Metro Station on the National Highway No.4 and the Anchepalya road. Hence there is no need for a third road;

• Respondent-BMRCL has attempted to mis-lead the Court and it has not come with clean hands;

• In its first Statement of Objections, it has stated that what is sought to be acquired is only vacant land. After submission of report by the Court Commissioner, BMRCL has changed its stand in its additional Statement of objections and admitted that there is basement structure beneath the land sought to be acquired;

• As per Section 14(2)(ii) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act['RERA' for short], 2016, consent of 2/3rd of allottees other than the promoter is necessary to make any alterati