Approval conditions for land acquisition must be met to establish vested rights; public interest considerations prevail in land allocation disputes.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Praveen Y. Devareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader along with Sri J.M. Gangadhar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4; Sri G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri Suresh S. Shettammanavar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 10 to 23; and Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for respondent No.9.

2. This writ petition is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961, seeking to challenge the order passed in Writ Petition No.27387/2016 dated 11.03.2025. Appellant No.1 is the writ petitioner. Appellant No.2 states that the project approved in the name of appellant No.1 has been transferred in its favour by virtue of the Government Order dated 16.01.2024. Consequently, the cause of action in the writ petition, as well as in the present writ appeal, continues in favour of appellant No.2.

Brief facts are as follows:

3. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of mining iron ore. The appellant submitted a proposal to the State Government seeking approval to establish 1.5 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant. The State Government granted approval and accordingly acquired 922 acres of land.

3.1 Subsequently, the appellant submitted a proposal for expansion of the steel plant from 1.5 MTPA to 2.5 MTPA and sought additional land. The State High Level Clearance Committee (for short, 'SHLCC'), in its meeting held on 23.02.2007, granted approval for the expansion, which included acquisition of additional land of 995.50 Acres. One of the conditions imposed requiring the appellant to secure the consent of 75% of the landowners for such acquisition.

3.2 The appellant thereafter sought an extension of time to implement the project. The SHLCC granted an extension of two years for implementation. Simultaneously, the SHLCC directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, 'KIADB') to allot 104 acres of the land earlier approved for the appellant, in favour of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'KSSIDC') for the purpose of developing an Industrial Estate. Pursuant to this direction, the Government issued an order directing the KIADB to earmark 104 acres for KSSIDC.

3.3 The KIADB initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of the said 104 acres and handed over possession to KSSIDC, which thereafter developed industrial sites and allotted them to eligible allottees.

3.4 Aggrieved by the Final Notification acquiring the said land, as well as by the Government Order dated 02.11.2012 directing KIADB to earmark 104 acres in favour of KSSIDC out of the land initially approved for the appellant, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.27387/2016. The learned Single Judge, after considering various aspects, dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to the appellant to make a representation seeking allotment of alternate land.

Submissions:

4. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the SHLCC approved the expansion of the steel plant and sanctioned the acquisition of 995.50 acres of land comprising various survey numbers of Basapura and other villages through the KIADB. Though such approval was granted, a condition was imposed requiring the appellants to secure the consent of 70% of the landowners.

4.1 Learned Senio