Sri Ramaswamy R. and Sri R. Maheshwariah vs The State of Karnataka and Others

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—These appeals assail the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 11116/2008 dated 28.1.2013. The subject matter of the Writ Petition was a challenge to the preliminary notification dated 27.10.2007 issued u/s 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ''the Act'') and the final notification dated 28.5.2008 issued u/s 28(4) of the said Act (Annexures-J & K respectively). The petitioners contended that they are the owners of 161/2 guntas of agricultural lands and they are small farmers and the said land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing a sewage treatment plant and the beneficiary was to be Respondent No. 6 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Before the learned Single Judge, two contentions were raised, which have been answered in paragraphs-5 and 6 of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rejected the Writ Petition as having no merit. Against the said order, these appeals have been filed.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. Two submissions have been made on behalf of the appellant. It is firstly contended that the acquiring authority did not obtain permission from Respondent No. 6 prior to initiating acquisition of the appellants'' lands. It is next contended that the adjacent area, which has been acquired by the respondent authorities, has not been utilized for the purpose for which it has been acquired and, therefore, the present acquisition is bad in law.

We note that the learned Single Judge has recorded at paragraph-7 of his order that the Chairman and Engineers of Respondent No. 6, who were present in court, had reiterated that the lands were necessary for the purpose of establishing a sewage treatment plant and, therefore, the acquisition was in order. In other words, Respondent No. 6 was keen to take possession of the acquired land to establish sewage treatment plant. The question of seeking permission of Respondent No. 6 by the acquiring authorities, therefore, would not arise. Secondly, merely because any adjacent area which has been acquired has not been utilized for the purpose for which it has been acquired cannot make the present acquisition bad in law. There is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no merit in the Writ Appeals. They are dismissed.