Acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements for notice and consideration of objections are not met, emphasizing the necessity of procedural equity.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are seeking to quash the declaration/notification dated 27.02.2023 issued by the second respondent under Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short).

2. The petitioners are owners and cultivators of small extent of agriculture and residential land situated at Konagatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, and their lands form part of the acquisition initiated by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) under the Preliminary Notification dated 07.02.2022 issued under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act.

3. In W.P No. 4285 of 2024, the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No. 65/2B, measuring 1 acre 23 guntas comprising of extensive grape plantation, horticulture trees, bore well and pump houses, the said land being the sole source of his livelihood. They state that detailed objections under Section 28 (2) of the KIAD Act were filed, but the authorities mechanically rejected them through an order dated 20.01.2023 under (3) and thereafter issued Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 under (4).

4. In W.P. 18546 of 2025 the petitioner claims to be the owner of 0.24 guntas in Survey No. 67/ 4 (phoded from Survey No. 67/1) where he has constructed a dwelling cattle shed and farm storage house on 0.08 guntas, and is cultivating vegetables and ragi on the remaining 0.16 guntas. The land also contains ancestral burial remains of the petitioner's family. It is stated that though objections were filed on 29.04.2022, the respondents acquired 0.16 guntas leaving only 0.08 guntas through Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 despite multiple letter/representations requesting deletion of the land.

5. In WP No. 34227 of 2024, the petitioner claims to be the owner of Survey No. 67/1 measuring 19 guntas, which is also a joint family property containing a residential house where the petitioner and his family reside. The petitioner asserts that no notice under Section 28 (2) was issued to him and no opportunity to file objections was provided. Notwithstanding the absence of notice or a (3) order, the authorities proceeded to issue Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 and issued a notice under (6) calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the residential house. The petitioner further asserts that no compensation has been paid nor any agreement under Section 29 has been entered.

6. The respondents 3 and 4 in their statement of objections filed in W.P. 18546 of 2025 as well as W.P. 34227 of 2024 have contended that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable, asserting that the acquisition has been taken place strictly in accordance with Sections 28 (1) to 28(8) of the KIAD Act, pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 07.02.2022 and the Final Notification dated 27.02.2023, by which the lands vest absolutely in the State under Section 28 (5). It is contended that the individual notices under (2) were duly served and the petitioners objections were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before passing the order dated 20.01.2023 under (3) recommending acquisition. The respondents further state that the land in Survey Nos. 67/4 and 67/1 are situated in the midst of the notified industrial area and are essential for maintaining contiguity of the layout. Hence, they cannot be deleted. Further, the Government Circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013, relied upon by the petitioners, are mere internal guidelines without statutory force and only applicable if deletion does not disturb contiguity,