1. Heard Sri. Mallikarjun Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners, Sri. Maldar, learned HCGP appearing for respondent - 1, Sri. Basavaraj Sabarad and Sri. P.N.Hatti, learned Advocates appearing for KIADB and Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for third respondent. Perused the original records made available by learned Advocates appearing for second respondent - KIADB.

2. Petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking for quashing of the notification bearing No. IC 10 SPQ 2011, Bangalore, dated 19.04.2011 and also notification dated 19. 03.2012 issued under S.28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ' KIADB Act' for brevity) contending interalia that these lands are fertile agricultural lands and they are fully irrigated and they continue to be in possession of these lands.

3. It is the contention of Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that notification impugned in these writ petitions smack of legislative competence and it is contrary to KIADB Act and Land Acquisition Act and Circulars issued thereunder. He would elaborate his submission by contending that lands belonging to the petitioners are all fertile agricultural lands over which two crops a year is being raised and certain lands are also garden lands. He would contend as under:
1. Petitioner lands are good agricultural lands.
2. There is no formation of opinion by acquiring authority under S.28(1) which is a condition precedent for issuance of notification.
3. Government should be satisfied that land is required for the purpose for which it is proposed to be acquired before issuance of notification under S.28(4) and in the instant case there is no such satisfaction recorded by the Government.
4. Procedure followed for acquisition is improper namely, provisions of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 have not been followed.
5. Circular dated 03.03.2007, Annexure - C issued by Government in exercise of its power under S.17 of the KIADB Act has not been followed.
6. Public purpose is not defined under the KIADB Act and as such Court has to examine as to whether the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and Rules made thereunder has been complied or not. He contends that when the lands in question are being acquired for a private purpose namely, for a company, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act would apply and same has to be complied and also the provisions of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 has to be followed, which according to him has not been followed.
7. Right to food and right to life is protected under Art.21 of the Constitution and as such without following the prescribed procedure the respondent authorities cannot acquire the lands.
8. Insofar as W.P.Nos.63629-530/2012 are concerned, the lands involved therein are falling within the area having heritage value and as such, they cannot be acquired.
9. Hallas and Nalas which are located in the properties in question also cannot be acquired.

4. He would draw the attention of the Court to the photographs produced along with the writ petitions, as also the revenue records to buttress his argument that the lands in question are fertile agricultural lands where garden has been raised and petitioners are harvesting two crops a year.

5. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that State Government has not formed any opinion after issuance of notification under S.3(1) of the Act and before issuance of notification under S.28(1). This ex facie is evident from the fact that notifications issued under S.3(1) and S.28(1) having been issued on the same day which is a clear pointer to the fact that there is no opinion formed by the Government. As such acquisition proceedings is bad in law. In support of his submission in this regard, he has relied upon the following Judgments:
(1) AIR 2009 (NOC) 2900 (Kar).
Poojari Pedanna and etc., v. State of Karnataka and Others.
(2) AIR 2008 SC 261.