Administrative bodies must provide reasoned orders when rejecting objections, ensuring fair deliberation, especially in land acquisition cases.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

1. These two writ petitions challenged the preliminary notification dated 07.02.2022 and the final notification dated 27.02.2023 issued under Sections 28 (1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD, Act’ for short).

Brief facts:

2. W.P.No.20840/2023 is preferred by the Parvathamma, who claims to be the owner of 1 acre in Sy.No.67/3 (‘petition property’ for short) acquired under a registered partition deed dated 24.04.2019. It is stated that the petition property is her only remaining land, her earlier lands in Sy.No.64/3, 64/11, 83 and 84 were already acquired for NH-207 including her house. It is stated that land is fertile, yield two crops annually and is located within the gramathana limits, abutting rajakaluve and D.C. quarters nearby.

3. W.P.No.19272/2023 is preferred by Muniraju, who claims to be the owner of 5 guntas in Sy.No.78/2 purchased under registered sale deed dated 07.11.2019. He has converted the land for commercial purpose and has obtained a industrial unit in the said land.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objections filed by the petitioners have not been considered in the manner known to law, and a bare perusal of the endorsement / order passed under Section 28 (3) of the KIAD Act does not disclose any reasoning for rejection. It is further submitted that similarly placed landowners in respect of Sy.No.78/11 and Sy.No.78/13 belonging to Sri Ugam Raj and Marappa, whose lands are situated adjoining the petitioners’ land, had approached this Court challenging the very preliminary notification dated 07.02.2022 and final notification dated 07.02.2023, in the case of Munegowda S., Vs. The State Of Karnataka and Others , W.P.No.19238/2023 D.D 22.01.2025 (Munegowda S.) preferred by the owner of land in Sy.No.78/9 which was originally numbered as Sy.No.64/3 have approached this Court, this Court has quashed the acquisition by order dated 22.01.2025 on the specific ground that the respondent- authority has failed to consider the objection in accordance with law and the order under (3) did not reflect application of mind. It is argued that the lands of the said similarly situated landowners were dropped from acquisition at serial Nos.64 and 66 only on the ground that they fall within the gramthana limits. The petitioners’ land also falls within the very same gramthana limits as is evident from the material on record. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason for the respondent-authority to acquire the petitioners’ land while dropping the adjacent lands, particularly when the petitioners’ objections on supporting materials are substantially similar to those considered in the earlier case which resulted in quashing.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand submits that even assuming that the petitioners' lands are fertile agricultural lands, they are required for maintaining the contiguity and compactness of the industrial layout, and therefore no fault can be found in the recommendation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer(SLAO). It is further submitted that when the objections raised by the landowners are similar, the reasons for rejection may also naturally be similar, and issuance of cyclostyle or formulaic order would not by itself vitiate the acquisition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Order passed under Section 28 (3) of the KIAD Act, 1966 insofar as the petitioners’ land is concerned does not