REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).19510/2011

P. PARTHASARATHY                                                  Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and  

order  dated  15.6.2011  passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  

Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment and order passed  

by the learned Single Judge of the same High Court.   

2. By the aforesaid order, the High Court where the legality and  

validity of the final notification dated 6.2.09 issued under sub-

section  (4)  of  Section  28  of  the  Karnataka  Industrial  Areas  

Development  Act,  1966  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  'Act')  

Page 1 of 15

was challenged upheld the validity and legality of the aforesaid  

notification  issued  by  the  respondent/State  exercising  the  

powers vested in it under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the  

Act.  

3. The  petitioner  herein  is  the  owner  of  survey  no.  154/10  

measuring  about  2  acres  at  Kengeri  village,  Kengeri  Hobli,  

Bangalore  South  taluk.   The  land  of  the  petitioner  was  the  

subject  matter  of  the  notification  issued  by  the  State  of  

Karnataka.  The notification was issued under Section 28(1) of  

the  Act.   The  petitioner,  however,  did  not  file  any  objection  

whereupon a final  notification under Section 28(4)  of  the Act  

was issued, which, however, was challenged before the learned  

Single  Judge  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  by  filing  a  writ  

petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. No. 24867  

of 2005.  

4. The  learned  Single  Judge  by  judgment  and  order  dated  

13.01.2009 allowed the said writ petition filed by the petitioner  

herein and quashed the final notification issued and also the  

consequential corrigendum.  The learned Single Judge also gave  

a  liberty  to  the  respondents  to  identify  the  land  which  they  

Page 2 of 15

propose  to  acquire.   It  was  also  held  therein  by  the  learned  

Single Judge that the petitioner as also the respondent no. 4  

would take the proceeding before the High Court as the notice in  

the matter of identification of the land in question and file their  

objections within a period of four weeks.  Subsequent thereto, a  

notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 6.2.2009.  In  

the said notice, the Board informed the petitioner that the land  

described in the notice is required for the development of the  

Karnataka  Industrial  Development  Board  and  that  the  

Government of Karnataka had issued a notification under sub-

section  (1)  of  Section  28  of  the  Act  by  notification  dated  

19.12.1998.  The petitioner was further informed that he may  

show cause as to why the land should not be acquired and that  

such a notice is being given to the petitioner pursuant to the  

order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition.  A  

description of the land was also given in the said notice.  The  

petitioner  as against  the same submitted a reply contending,  

inter alia, that the land of the petitioner could not and would  

not  come within  the  aforesaid  acquisition  and,  therefore,  his  

name shown in the preliminary notification dated 19.12.1998 be  

Page 3 of 15

deleted.  He further stated in the said reply filed that the plan  

prepared  for  road  including  the  peripherial  road  junction,  

approved by the competent          authority clearly indicate that  

the land in question is not at all  required or proposed to be  

acquired and that being the state of affairs, acquisition of any  

portion  of  the  said  land  bearing  survey  no.  154  cannot  be  

sustained either in facts or in law and the same is liable to be  

dropped from acquisition.

5. After the receipt of the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner,  

an  enquiry  was  conducted  by  the  Special  Land  Acquisition  

Officer.  A report was also prepared, which is placed on record.  

It appears the petitioner was represented by his counsel in the  

said enquiry proceedings.  The concerned officer considered the  

records and then ordered that notices be issued to all concerned  

persons including the petitioner notifying them that a survey  

would be conducted to measure the land and that the petitioner  

should be present in the aforesaid survey to be made to show  

their respective lands.  

6. It is also disclosed from the record that as per the date fixed i.e.  

on 18.4.2009,  the  concerned officers  visited the  spot  and on  

Page 4 of 15

that  day,  the concerned persons including the  petitioner  and  

others were present.  In the said survey, the previous phoded  

numbers were cancelled and thereafter the mahazar was drawn  

in the presence of the parties and they were also given sketch  

copies with available records in terms of their requests.   The  

officer,  thereafter,  heard the arguments and after referring to  

the order of the Karnataka High Court dated 13.01.2009 it was  

held  that  the  land  measuring  2.33  acres  is  required  for  the  

project.  Thereafter the said Land Acquisition Officer passed an  

order that the land bearing survey no. 154/10 of Kengeri village,  

Kengeri  Hobli,  Bangalore  South  taluk  is  required  for  the  

proposed reasons of acquisition and that the same is suitable  

and required as per the joint measurement and schedule and,  

therefore, the said land measuring 2.33 acres was ordered to be  

acquired.  Consequent thereupon a notification under Section  

28(4)  was  issued  whereby  the  land  of  the  petitioner  was  

acquired by putting the name of the petitioner in the schedule  

annexed to the said notification.   

7. The validity of the aforesaid notification was challenged by filing  

a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court.  The learned Single  

Page 5 of 15

Judge who heard the  writ  petition,  after  hearing  the  counsel  

appearing  for  the  parties,  dismissed  the  writ  petition  by  his  

order  dated  11.9.2009  holding  that  the  order  of  the  learned  

Single  Judge  in  the  earlier  writ  petition  no.  24867/2005  

directing the Land Acquisition Officer to provide opportunity to  

the  petitioner  and also  to  identify  the  land and thereafter  to  

proceed with the matter having become final and binding and  

since  subsequent  to  the  said  order,  the  land  having  been  

identified and his  objections  having been considered and the  

actual  portion of  the  land required for  formation of  the  road  

having been notified, there could be no further grievance of the  

petitioner.  Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner  

was dismissed.  

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was filed before  

the High Court, which is the impugned judgment and order.  By  

the  said  judgment,  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  

dismissed the appeal holding that any defect in the preliminary  

notification would not prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings.  

It was also held that though survey number was not challenged,  

a fresh inquiry was held to identify the land whereupon the land  

Page 6 of 15

was identified and thereafter order was passed followed by final  

declaration that the land of  the petitioner is  required for  the  

project.  Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed and the  

present petition was filed on which we have heard the learned  

counsel appearing for the parties.  

9. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner  

has submitted that the land was not identifiable as although the  

extent  of  land  was  mentioned  in  the  notification  but  the  

boundaries that were given were incorrect and erroneous and,  

therefore, the notification issued by the respondent State under  

sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act is liable to be quashed.   

10. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has  

relied upon the decisions of this Court titled Narendrajit Singh  

& Anr  . Vs.    The State of U.P. and Anr  .   reported in (1970) 1  

SCC 125,  Madhya Pradesh Housing Board   Vs.    Mohd. Shafi    

and Others reported in (1992) 2  SCC 168 and  Om Prakash  

Sharma and Others   Vs.   M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam    

and Others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 306.  

11.Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

Page 7 of 15

respondent no. 5 and Ms. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing  

for  the  State  have  refuted  the  aforesaid  submissions  of  the  

counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that the land  

which  was  sought  to  be  acquired  by  the  respondent  was  

identifiable all along. It is also submitted that the petitioner was  

given opportunity to file his objections, which were considered,  

and even the land was re-surveyed in order to identify the exact  

location and area of the land in terms of the order passed by the  

learned Single Judge and thereafter upon proper identification  

and verification of the land, the notification under sub-section  

(4)  of  Section 28 of the Act having been validly issued,  there  

could be no interference in the present case.   

12.In  the  light  of  the  aforesaid  submissions  of  the  counsel  

appearing for  the respondents,  we propose to dispose of  this  

special leave petition by giving our reasons thereof.

13. The project  that we are  concerned with was also the  subject  

matter  of  appeal  filed  in  this  Court  in  the  case  of  State  of  

Karnataka  and  Anr.   Vs.    All  India  Manufacturers    

Association  and  Anr. reported  in  (2006)  4  SCC  683.   In  

paragraph 77 of the said judgment, it was held by this Court  

Page 8 of 15

that  the  concerned  project  is  an  integrated  infrastructure  

development project and is not merely a highway project.  It was  

also  held  that  the  project  which  is  styled,  conceived  and  

implemented  is  the  Bangalore-Mysore  Infrastructure  Corridor  

Project  which conceived of  the development of  roads between  

Bangalore and Mysore. There are several interchanges in and  

around the periphery of the city of the Bangalore together with  

numerous developmental infrastructure activities along with the  

highway at several points.  It is, therefore, needless to reiterate  

that the project is a very important project and the land which  

is  sought  to  be  acquired  is  proposed  to  be  a  part  of  the  

peripheral  road  being  a  part  of  the  aforesaid  developmental  

infrastructure.

14.The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there was  

any inaccuracy with regard to the description of the boundaries  

of the land which is sought to be acquired by the respondents.  

In fact, in the earlier round of litigation wherein validity of sub-

section (1) of Section 28 was not challenged, what was done was  

to quash the notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section  

28,  which  was  in  fact  under  challenge.  Even  thereafter  and  

Page 9 of 15

pursuant to the orders of  the High Court  which had become  

final and binding, a re-survey was done after going through the  

objection filed by the petitioner. In the said re-survey where the  

petitioner was also personally present, the land proposed to be  

taken and acquired was identified,  sketch map was prepared  

and thereafter only the final notification under sub-section (4) of  

Section 28 was issued.   

15.That  the  petitioner  could  file  his  objection  and he  was fully  

heard  and  was  also  given  an  opportunity  regarding  

identification of the land indicates that the petitioner had ample  

opportunity  to  place  his  case,  which  was  considered  but  

decided against him.  In our considered opinion full opportunity  

having  been given  to  the  petitioner  to  place  his  case  and to  

oppose  the  acquisition  process,  there  could  be  no  further  

grievance of the petitioner in that regard.   

16.We are also of the opinion that no prejudice is caused to the  

petitioner  in  any  manner  for  the  land  was  re-surveyed  and  

thereafter the land sought to be acquired was identified, which  

included the land of the petitioner and, therefore, the entire pre-

conditions and formalities as laid down under Section 28 of the  

Page 10 of 15

Act were duly complied with and were adhered to and followed  

and, therefore, there cannot be any further cause of grievance  

for the petitioner.  

17. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to a decision of  

the Constitution Bench of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur  

Vs.  State of Bombay and Others, reported in AIR 1960 SC  

1203.   In  paragraph  12  of  the  said  judgment,  the  Supreme  

Court  has  held  that  the  purpose  of  the  notification  under  

Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view  

to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if  

necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land  

was  adapted  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  sought  to  be  

acquired.  It  was further held in that decision that it is only  

under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by the  

Government that the  land with proper description and area so  

as  to  identifiable  is  needed  for  a  public  purpose  or  for  a  

company.   The aforesaid  observation was made after  holding  

that  what  was  a  mere  proposal  under  Section  4  becomes  a  

subject  matter  of  a  definite  proceeding  for  acquisition  on  

issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.

Page 11 of 15

18.We feel that the law laid down in the said decision applies in  

full force to this case also. In the present case also there were  

some errors and mistakes in the notification issued under sub-

section (1) of Section 28 of the Act but the same did not, in any  

manner,  prevent  the  petitioner  from  submitting  an  effective  

objection  and  also  from  getting  an  opportunity  of  effective  

hearing  for  him.  A  re-survey  was  done  in  his  presence  and,  

therefore, the purpose for which  the provision of sub-section  

(1), (2) and (3) have been enacted, have been fully carried out in  

the present case.  

19.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that although there  

was  some  discrepancy  in  the  description  of  the  property  

proposed  to  be  acquired  and  the  description  given  although  

might not have been exactly accurate, but the same did not in  

any manner misled the petitioner regarding the identity  of the  

land which is corroborated by the fact of the detailed enquiry  

which was conducted in his presence. The petitioner was also  

able  to  file  a  detailed  and  effective  reply  to  the  show cause  

notice issued to him.

20. The  decisions  which  are  relied  upon  by  the  learned  counsel  

Page 12 of 15

appearing for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts.  

So far the decision in case of  Narendrajit Singh & Anr  . Vs.    

The State  of  U.P.  and Anr  .   reported  in  (1970)  1  SCC 125  

(supra) is concerned, in the said case we find that this Court  

interfered with the declaration because there was no particulars  

given in the notification.  In the said case, there was no mention  

of any locality at all and in that context, this Court interfered  

with the proposed acquisition.  

21. So far the next case, namely, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board  

Vs.    Mohd. Shafi  and Others   reported  in (1992)  2 SCC 168  

(supra) is concerned, in that case also details and particulars of  

the  land  were  not  given  and  a  wrong  public  purpose  was  

mentioned and in that view of the matter, this Court interfered  

with the acquisition proceeding.   

22. As regards the case of  Om Prakash Sharma and Others     Vs.  

M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Others reported in  

(2005)  10  SCC  306  (supra)  which  was  relied  upon  by  the  

counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case neither any  

survey number was given nor any khasra number was given.  

Even the name of the persons were not mentioned and in that  

Page 13 of 15

context the declaration was quashed with a liberty by way of  

giving a fresh opportunity for  initiation of  a fresh acquisition  

proceeding.  

23.The aforesaid cases are  clearly  distinguishable  on facts and,  

therefore,  they  have  no  application  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the present case.

24.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we  

are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge as  

also the learned Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court  

did  not  commit  any  mistake  or  error  in  dismissing  the  writ  

petition.   

25.We  find  no  infirmity  in  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  

passed by the Division Bench.  The petition has no merit and is  

dismissed, but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  

26.Since we have dismissed this petition, any interim order passed  

by the High Court shall also stand vacated by this order.  

…………………........................ J

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

Page 14 of 15

............................................J        (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 24, 2011.

Page 15 of 15