The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches in challenging acquisition proceedings can result in the dismissal of a writ petition, and the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in such cases.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the impugned notificationS dtd. 24/2/2005 and 1/3/2006 as the respondent-authorities have not notified before issuance of the aforementioned notifications.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioners are the owner in possession of 19 guntas of land out of 2.16 acres in Sy.No.138/2 of Arehalli- Guddadahalli village. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent-authorities have issued notification dtd. 22/2/2005 under Sec. 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), proposing for acquisition of land and the purpose for which the said notification was notified. It is also the case of the petitioners that notification dtd. 22/2/2005 (Annexure-C) was not issued/published in two Daily Newspapers having wide circulation in the said locality. That apart, it is urged that due personal notice was not served to the petitioners by the respondent-authorities. However, after issuance of the final notification, a notice dtd. 1/3/2006 was issued under Sec. 28(6) of the Act, directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the schedule property as per Notice dtd. 15/3/2006. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the Notifce dtd. 15/3/2006 in Writ Petition No.11204 of 2007, and the said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 30/7/2007 as per Annexure-F. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners had given representation dtd. 15/3/2006 to the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-G to release the petitioners property from acquisition. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent-Government has not considered the representation made by the petitioner seeking de- notification of the land and as such, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.18147 of 2007 seeking writ of mandamus to de-notify the land bearing Sy.No.138/2 of Arehalli-Guddadahalli village. The said writ petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 7/6/2010. Thereafter, the petitioners have presented this writ petition, challenging the impugned notification by the respondent authority.

3. I heard Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the parties and Sri P.V. Chandreshaker learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board and Sri K.R. Nityananda, learned AGA for the State.

4. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the proposed acquisition is for formation of industrial layout and if the industries are established, the same would cause health hazard to the villagers, as the subject land is situated just one kilometer away from the village and the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also residing in the schedule land. The learned Counsel has also produced photographs in B series.

5. Per contra, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches, since the petitioners were aware about the acquisition proceedings by approaching this Court in Writ Petition No.11204 of 2007 and in this regard, he referred to the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure and argued that the petitioners ought to have urged and challenged the impugned notification in Writ Petition No.11204 of 2007 itself and having not done so, the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition challenging the impugned notification. He also submitted that possession of land was taken on 19/6/2006 by the Government and thereafter, the land was transferred to respondent-Board on 1/7/2006 and pursuant to same, award came to be passed on 14/9/2011 and therefore, he contended that the petitioners cannot unsettle the settled things with regard to the acquisition proceedings after a gap of one and half decade.

6. Sri K.R. Nityananda, learned AGA relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court