CAV ORDER

Both these petitions, call in question, the notification issued by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’ for short) under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), insofar as the land of these petitioners, as described in the respective petitions.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri Murali Babu M., in W.P.No.10575 of 2025 and Sri Chandan Gowda Patil in W.P.No.8678 of 2025; Smt Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and Sri B B Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents/KIADB.

3. The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 52/1 respectively of Byradenahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District as observed hereinabove. The lands that have come to the hands of the petitioners have been narrated in the petition, which would not be necessary for consideration of the issue in the lis. The lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 52/1 of Byradenahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District becomes the subject matter of acquisition from the hands of the Board by issuance of a notification under Section 28(1) of the Act. Though the notification was issued in the year 2010, the final notification in terms of Section 28(4) of the Act is issued in the year 2022. Therefore, the averment in the petitions is that the Board has issued the final notification only after 12 years and hence, it is in violation of the statute, thus resulting in vitiation of the entire acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are on different scores of challenge as well, that the petitioners’ lands are fully developed, fertile and have fruit bearing trees in those lands and this is the only source of livelihood to the family of the petitioners and therefore, seek to challenge the acquisition process by the Board.

4. The learned counsel Sri Murali Babu M., appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.10575 of 2025 would vehemently contend that the land of the petitioner is being utilized for the purpose of growing grapes and other fruits and in such circumstances, circular issued by the Government would come into operation, where such lands are exempted. This is considered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.39 of 2024 is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his further contention that certain lands in terms of the circular are given up by the Board, and therefore, the land of the petitioner also should merit dropping from acquisition.

5. The learned counsel Sri Chandan Gowda Patil, appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.8678 of 2025 would also contend that though the petitioner has filed objections to the notice issued under Section 28(2) of the Act, it has not merited any consideration while issuing a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act.

6. On all the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for petitioners seeks quashment of the notification and consequently, retaining of the lands with the petitioners.

7. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri B B Patil representing the Board would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the lands no doubt in terms of the circular would be given up, only if it is not disturbing the contiguity. In the cases at hand, the learned counsel submits that the acquisition of the land of the brother of the petitioner adjacent to the land of the petitioner in W.P.10575 of 2025 was challenged and the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.3667 of 2023 and connected cases has rejected the claim, wherein the very same grounds had been projected and the said judgment has become final. In the light of the said judgment attaining finality and all these grounds being urged by the petitioner therein, it would cover the issue in the lis on all its fours. The learned counsel would further contend that the circular no doubt is considered by the Div