The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the Final Notification is issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, the land vests in the State, and objections filed after the cut-off date are not valid.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. All these petitions broadly having common law and facts, are filed by the land owners for laying a challenge to the acquisition of their lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

2. Learned advocates appearing for the Petitioners seek to falter the acquisition making the following submissions:

(i) The acquisition of the land is not for public purpose and their objections filed to the proposal for acquisition have not been duly considered.

(ii) The opinion of the government as to requirement of the lands, is unfounded since KIADB itself recommended for their denotification;

(iii) The lands being adjacent to the villages could not have been notified for acquisition.

(iv) The acquired lands are sought to be given to some others not connected with industry;

(v) The acquisition is not accomplished within the statutory period and possession has not been taken till date; neither award has been passed nor compensation has been paid; and

(vi) In any event, acquisition if at all to be saved from challenge, the compensation has to be paid under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. After service of notice, the State being the acquiring body has entered appearance through the AGA; the KIADB and its SLAO have entered appearance through their panel counsel and they have filed their objections. The allottee of the land being a respondent also is represented by its advocate and its has filed its Statement of Objections, opposing the Petitions. All the learned AGA, learned Panel Counsel for the KIADB and learned counsel for appearing for the Education Trust making submission in justification of the impugned acquisition, controverting the Petition averments.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, although this Court declines indulgence so far as, the challenge to acquisition is concerned; however, it is inclined to grant some relief to the land owners as under, and for the following reasons:

(a) In all these cases, the Preliminary Notification under Sec. 28(1) came to be issued on 15/7/1994 and it was followed by the issuance of Final Notification on 22/7/1996 under Sec. 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966. A Division of this Court having scanned the provisions of 1966 Act and the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in W.P.No.17600/2004 etc., between NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED vs. STATE and OTHERS, disposed off on 15/6/2011 has held that once the Final Notification is issued, the land would vest in the State, whether award is passed or not, compensation is paid or not and possession is taken or not. The Bench at paragraph 19 reiterated the legal position with the following observation:

"Under the Land Acquisition Act, Sec. 16 of the Act contemplates vesting of the land with the Government. Under the said Act, the lands under acquisition get vested with the Government when the Collector makes an award under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Government takes possession. The situation is entirely different under KIAD Act. After the final notification under Sec. 28(4) of KIAD Act, the lands get vested in the Government by virtue of Sec. 28(5) of the Act by operation of law and it does not depend upon passing of any award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, though Ss. 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act contemplates preliminary and final notifications for acquisition of land, when once final notification under Sec. 28(4) of the Act get published, the land vests with the State Government as contemplated under Sec. 28(5) of the Act..."

Thus, the scheme of acquisition under the 1966 Act is bit in variance with that of the 1894 Act, whereunder, the land will vest only after award is passed and possession is taken. That being the position, the grievance of the Petitioners that despite KIADB Resolution recommending denotification of these la