The court emphasized that the acquisition for an industrial area could benefit a single company, and that delay in passing an award cannot be solely attributed to the authorities if the records were secured at the appellants' instance.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VISHWAJITH SHETTY,J. - This intra court appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner assailing the order dtd. 24/5/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.26862/2009.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the record which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the appellants herein claim to be the owners in possession of the lands bearing survey No.106/3 and survey No.106/4 of Mogarahalli Village and survey No.136/1 and survey No.136/2 of Anaganahalli Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. The said lands were notified for acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") and preliminary notification under Sec. 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1966") was issued on 7/12/2005 and the final notification under Sec. 28(4) of the Act of 1966 was issued on 31/8/2006 in respect of 168 acres 26 1/2 guntas of land in Mogarahalli Village and 22 acres 19 guntas of land in Anaganahalli Village and thereby totally land measuring 191 acres 5 1/2 guntas, which included the lands in dispute were notified by the Board for the purpose of acquisition. The respondent No.2 was allotted an extent of 109 acres of land out of notified lands. W.P.No.26826/2009 and 30235-30237 of 2009 were filed by the appellants challenging the final notification issued by the Board insofar it relates to the aforesaid four items of lands in dispute. The Board had filed its statement of objections and opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide the order impugned has dismissed the writ petition and being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that major chunk of the acquired land has been allotted to respondent No.2 and therefore, the acquisition ought to have been made as an industrial estate and not as an industrial area. He also submits that the possession of the lands in question still remains with the appellants and the respondents have failed to pass an award till date and therefore, the acquisition has lapsed. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.6819/2017 (the Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Sri K.B Lingaraju) which was disposed of on 28/9/2022. He submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay as the writ petition is filed in the year 2009 challenging the final notification which was issued in the year 2006. He also submits that the lands in question are not required for the purpose for which they were acquired and therefore, the acquisition in respect of the lands in question is required to be quashed. He further submits that in the event this Court is not inclined to quash the acquisition notification, a direction may be issued to the Board to grant compensation to the appellants under the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'). He submits that the respondents have not passed any award nor they have taken possession of the lands in question and there was a recurring cause of action to the appellants and therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the writ petition is hit by delay and latches.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Board submits that acquisition even for a single industry is permissible and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the this Court in the case of SOMASHEKAR AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - 1997 SCC ONLINE KAR 653 : (1997) 7 KANT LJ 410. He also submits that the appellants are the owners of the land measuring only about 4 acres, which is not even 5% of the total extent of land acquired and whe