AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
The appellants have filed the present appeal, impugning the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5148/2025 (LA-KIADB) [impugned order]. The impugned order is a common order passed in W.P. No.6708/2025 (LA-KIADB) and other connected matters, including W.P. No.5148/2025 (LA-KIADB).
The said writ petitions were filed impugning the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development, Act 1966 [KIAD Act] and the final notification dated 03.10.2024 issued under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act.
The learned Single Judge declined to quash the preliminary notification, however, found that the final notification was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court was of the view that the objections filed by the writ petitioners to the acquisition had not been properly considered. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer [SLAO] to continue the proceedings from the stage of Section 28 (3) of the KIAD Act.
The appellants had challenged the acquisition, inter alia, on the ground that it was contrary to two circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka. However, the learned Single Judge found no merit in the said challenge.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order was also challenged by the writ petitioners in W.P. No.33550/2024 (LA-KIADB), which formed part of the batch matters decided by the common impugned order. The appeal arising therefrom, being W.A. No.657/2026 (LA-KIADB) was disposed of by order dated 26.03.2026.
A plain reading of the said order indicates that the only argument advanced on behalf of the appellants therein was that the SLAO would be bound by the findings in the impugned order in regard to two circulars. It was contended that the interpretation of the two circulars by the learned Single Judge was contrary to the orders passed by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.461/2016 and 39/2024.
In response to the said contention, the learned senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein submitted that the SLAO may be directed to consider the objections already filed, uninfluenced by the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
The appeal was disposed of with the directions to the SLAO to consider the objections already filed, as well as any additional objections that may be filed, without being influenced by the interpretation of the said circulars by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The relevant extracts from paragraph Nos.5 to 8 of the order passed in W.A. No.657/2026 are set out below:
"5.The only argument advanced by Sri Dhyan Chinnappa is that the Writ Court while remanding the matter has interpreted two circulars on which the entire case of the petitioners rests and the same is against the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.461/2016 and 39/2024. In the event the SLAO to consider the objections, the said interpretation by the Writ Court would be binding on the SLAO and prejudice the case of the petitioner.
6.In response, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty., learned Senior counsel submits that the Court may direct the SLAO to consider the objections already filed and the additional objections, if any to be filed, without being influenced by the interpretation of the Circulars by the learned Single Judge and also in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Divison Judge of this Court in W.A.Nos.461/2016 and 39/2024.
7.In view of the submission of learned Senior counsel Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty., nothing survives further to consider the case of the appellants. In that view of the matter, while upholding the judgment of the writ Court, we observe that the SLAO has to consider the objections already filed and the additional objections if any to be filed independently without being influenced by the interpretation of the writ Court on the circulars, in accordance with the law.
8.The parties are at liberty to file additional objections and cite the judgments in support of their contentions within 10 days from today and the SLAO is directed to consider and pass reasoned order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of one month thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the SLAO on 10.04.2026."
The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the present appeal may be disposed of in similar terms as contained in the order passed in W.A. No.657/2026 (LA-KIADB).
In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of by directing the SLAO to consider the objections already filed as well as any additional objections that may be filed by the appellants, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the impugned order insofar as it interprets the two circulars in question.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
We request the SLAO to consider the objections and pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from date.
The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.