CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ of appropriate nature to quash Notification No.CI/86/SPQ/2010 dated 04-05-2010, insofar as it relates to Sy.No.902B measuring 6 acres 86 cents (Sl.No.233) Sy.No.907A measuring 6 acres 10 cents (Sl.No.239) and Sy.No.907B measuring 6 acres 38 cents (Sl.No.240) of Kudithini Village and

(b) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.

(c) Issue the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ of appropriate nature to quash the Notification dated 05-02-2010 gazetted on 06-02-2010 bearing No.CI/86/SPQ/2010 issued by the respondent No.3 which is produced and marked as Annexure-G to the writ petition.

(d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the entire acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 have been abandoned insofar as the petition schedule properties are concerned.”

2. Heard Sri Gurudas S. Kannur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Keshava Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1; Smt. Sharmila Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri Nitin Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -

3.1. The petitioner is the Executive Director of one M/s Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short). The Company is operating a sponge iron unit and a power plant unit in an area of 24.75 acres in Kuditini Village, Bellary District. The Company also holds a sanction of 12 Mega Watt captive power plant by the State High Level Clearance Committee constituted under the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002. When things stood thus, the State issues a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking to acquire land to an extent of 4865.64 acres for industrial purpose, i.e., to set up a steel plant for respondent No.4/Arcelor Mittal. A notice under sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. But, the averment in the petition is that it was never served on him. Enquiry then is sought to be conducted under sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act for considering the objections of persons who had appeared for hearing on the said date, on receipt of notice or those who had received the notice. On 04-05-2010, the State issued a Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act. The land of the petitioner was also included in the Final Notification as Sy.No.902B, 907A and 907B to a total extent of 19.34 acres. The petitioner became aware of the acquisition proceedings only when the name of the petitioner was replaced with the name of the Board in the revenue records. The petitioner then submits a representation which goes unheeded. Therefore, the present petition is preferred seeking the aforesaid prayer.

3.2. After the Notification, on 18-12-2012 the Assistant Commissioner passes an order declaring that the lands of the petitioner are forfeited on violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The coordinate Bench of this Court disposes the subject petition on 11-01-2013, in view of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 18-12-2012. A Writ Appeal is preferred challenging the said order in Writ Appeal No.30275 of 2013. The said Writ Appeal is disposed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to seek review. Accordingly, Review Petition No.100087 of 2014 is preferred. On 22-11-2017 the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e., the 4^th respondent issues a communication to the Board that possession of the property belonging to the petitioner has not been handed over to it and requests allotment of alternative land.

3.3. During the pendency of the subject petition, the Apex Court in B. RAVIPRAKASH v. KIADB disposes Civil Appeal Nos.621-700 of 2023 obse