SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in W. A. No. 288/06 were respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in W. P. No. 4148/5, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in W. P. No. 158/05 and respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 1393/05. The appellant in W. A. No. 289/06 was respondent No. 3 in W. P. No. 4148/2005 and W. P. No. 1393/05. The petitioners in the said writ petitions had questioned the notification dated 27-1-2004 issued under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas development Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the 'kiadb Act' for short)whereunder the lands in Sy. Nos. 110 (3 acres 15 guntas), 112 (3 acres 38 guntas), 113/1 (00-07 guntas), 113/2 (00-07 guntas), 113/3 (1 acre 02 guntas), 113/4 (00-23 guntas), 114 (1 acre 25 guntas), 115 (1 acre 35 guntas), 116 (1 acre 14 guntas), 126 (1 acre 20 guntas) and 127 (00-20 guntas), situate at Mahadevapura village, k. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, were declared as Industrial Area. Further the notification dated 4-12-2004 issued under Section 28 (4) and the notices under section 28 (6) of, the KIADB Act were also questioned and consequential relief was also sought. The learned single Judge on considering the rival contentions has allowed the writ petitions by order dated 24-1-2006. The appellants in both the above appeals claiming to be aggrieved by the said order have filed these appeals.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respective appellants, sri. G. S. Visweswara and Sri. S. Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel and sri. G. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the respective respondents.

(3.) THE learned single Judge while disposing the writ petitions has raised points for consideration and has answered the same seriatim. The learned counsel while assailing the order had referred to the same in the sequence of the points raised. Hence the relevant arguments addressed and the decisions cited would be referred as and when such point is discussed. However, one additional aspect which requires consideration is that the respondents have raised the question of maintainability of these appeals by filing an application and lengthy arguments are addressed. Hence, the said issue requires to be considered at the outset.