Holding

The change in location was justified on technical grounds, no malafides were proved, and a proper personal hearing was given; therefore, the acquisition is valid and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) initially notified acquisition of land for a trumpet interchange and access road to Bangalore Airport under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966. Later, the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation proposed a change in the project's location, reducing the land needed, and KIADB issued a fresh acquisition notification for different parcels. The appellants, Girias Investment, purchased the land after the decision, objected on grounds that the land had been converted to non‑agricultural use, that they intended a commercial complex, that the change was motivated by malafides, and that they were denied a personal hearing under Section 28(3). The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the change was based on sound technical reasons, no concrete evidence of malafides was presented, and an effective personal hearing was afforded as required by the Act. Consequently, the acquisition stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Issues considered

The change in location of the project and the fresh acquisition notification were motivated by malafides.
Whether the appellants were denied an effective personal hearing under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, akin to Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the acquisition can be quashed in the absence of extraordinary reasons.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1), s. 5-A

Subjects

land acquisitionmalafidespersonal hearingKarnataka Industrial Area Development Board Actpublic purposetechnical justificationquashing acquisitionnatural justice

Judgment

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 948

A MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. &-ANR. >---
v.
!- •
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1979 of 2008)
MARCH 13, 2008
B
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Kamataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966;
1
S. 28(1) and (3):
c Acquisition of land for execution of a construction project
- Change in location _of project - Fresh Notification ~Acquisition
of land belonging to appellants - Challenge to - Dismissed by
Single Judge_ of the High Court - Affirmed by Division Bench
of the High Court - Correctness of - Held: Correct - Decision
I .

D for change in the .location of the project was taken by the
authorities after due deliberation and keeping into
consideration necessities thereof - The land in que$lion >--·
purchased by the appellants long afler the final decision to
acquire the land was taken -: Malafides have been alleged by
E the appellants in the pleadings before the High Court without
any factual basis - Mere allegation of malafides not enough
and cogent evidence thereof must be furnished - Opportunity
of effective personal hearing in terms of S. 28(3) of the Act was )
given to them before final notification was issued and
F appellants had exercised their rights thereunder - Both, the
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have ~

given categorical finding in connection thereof - Supreme
Court found no reason to differ therefrom.
Acquisition of land/property - Quashing of - Held: An
G acquisition for the benefit of public at large not to be quashed
unless extra ordinary reasons exist.
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board,
).
respondent No.3, issued a Notification uls.28 of the
H 948
!

M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 949
OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, A
-...
proposing acquisition of certain land for the purpose of
constructing a 'trumpet interchange' and 'across road'
from National Highway to Bangalore Airport. Later, the
Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development
Corporation proposed a change in the location of the said B
project reducing the requirement of the land for the said
purpose. Consequently, the Board issued a fresh
Notification for acquisition of the land in the changed
location. In the meantime, appellants allegedly purchased
the land in question and objected the acquisition c
proceedings on the ground that the land in question had
been converted to non-agricultural use in terms of order
of Revenue authorities; and that they proposed to put up
a commercial complex on the land. The authority
overruled the objections. Appellants challenged the D
acquisition proceedings ~y filing a writ petition before the
.../ High Court on grounds of malafides etc. Single Judge of
-I the High Court found that the allegation of malafides had
not been made out and that the change in the location of
the land was necessitated on account of technical E
reasons, hence, dismissed the petition. Appeal filed
thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Appellants contended. that the action of the
. ~
respondents in changing the location of the interchange F
and the access road which had,ied to the acquisition of
the appellants' land" was actuated by malafides and the
explanation offered by them, that this had been
necessitated on account of technical reasons, was an
after thought and not based on the record; that the G
personal hearing envisaged under section 28(3) of the Act
was akin to a hearing under Section 5-A of the Land
....i.
Acquisition Act, 1894; and that in the absence of any such
effective hearing the acquisition was liable to fail.
'-
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
J

A Respondents submitted that the allegations of
:;.
malafide were on the face of it unacceptable for the simple
reason that the proposal to change the alignment of the
trumpet interchange and access road had been initiated
after a complete technical re-survey and long before the
B date of the sales in favour of the appellants and that in
any case, allegations of malafides had to be leveled
against some identified individual(s) who had to be
impleaded as a party to the litigation failing which the court
was precluded from examining this plea; and that the
c personal hearing envisaged under Section 28(3) had
indeed been given and as a token of this hearing the
appellants had signed the relevant proceedings.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the statement of objections filed on
D
behalf of the respondent No.1, the State of. Karnataka
before the Karnataka High Court, it is noticed that the
lands covered by the earlier Notification were proposed
to be acquired based on the tentative requirements
indicated by the ~irport Authority. After issuance of the
E Notification a letter was addressed to the Airport Authority
to reappraise the matter keeping in view the technical
needs and requirements on which a team of the Chief
Executive Officer and Head Technical of the Airport
Authority, a representative of the KSllDC and other local
F revenue officials visited the site and noticed that there
)>-
were some adverse ground conditions and difficulties
such as the existence of a large pond which necessitated
the change. It also appears that there was a great deal of
correspondence between all concerned and the final
G decision was taken to change the location of the trumpet
interchange and access road after due deliberation.
(Para - 7) [959-D, E, F, G)
~.
1.2 It is the admitted position that the land had been
purchased by the appellants long after the final decision
H
M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 951
OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

had been taken to acquire the land in the light of the A
revised proposal. It is also significant that in the objections
filed before the Land Acquisition Collector, no malafide
against any person has been alleged. (Para - 8) [961-B, CJ
· .1.3 It is found that malafides have been alleged in
the pleadings filed before the High Court. It is obvious 8
from a reading of the pleadings that only vague
allegations of malafides have been leveled and that too
without any basis. There can be two ways by which a case
of malafides can be made out; one that the action which
is impugned has been taken with the specific object of C
damaging the interest of the party and, secondly, such
action is aimed at helping some party which results in
damage to the party alleging malafides. It would be see.n
that there is no allegation whatsoever in the pleadings
that the case falls within the first category but an inference D
of malafide has been sought to be drawn in the course of
a vague pleading that the change had been made to help
certain important persons who would have lost their land
under the original acquisition. These allegations have
been replied to reveal that the land which had been E
denotified belonged to those who had absolutely no
position or power. (Paras - 8 & 11) [961-C, D; 965-E, F, G, H]
Smt. S.R. Venkataraman vs. Union oflndia &Anr. (1979)
2 SCC 491; State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC
471; Collector (D. M.) vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal (1985) 3 SCC 1; F
S.N. Patil vs. Or. M.M. Gosavi & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 227 and
B.E.M.L. Employees House Bldg. Coop. Society Ltd. vs. State
of Karnataka (2005) 9 SCC 248 - distinguished.
1.4 It is no doubt open to the court to go into the G
question of malafides raised by a litigant but in order to
succeed, much more than a mere allegation is required.
In the instant case, inference of malafide is based on the
ground that the change in the location of the trumpet
interchange and the access road had been suddenly
H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A made without proper application of mind to help certain
unidentified individuals resulting in the acquisition of the
land belonging to the appellants is, thus, without any
factual basis. (Para - 14) [968-G, H; 969-A]
Keshab Rao vs. State of West Bengal (1973) 3 SCC 216;
8 First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. vs. Nirdohi Prakash
Ganguli & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 160; Ajit Kumar Nag vs. G.M.(PJ)
I. 0. C. Ltd., Haldi & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764 and Prakash Singh
Badal & Anr. vs. State of Punjab and & Ors. {2007) 1 SCC 1 -
relied on.
c
1.5 The appellants have not identified any person
who had been instrumental in harming their cause. This
Court, therefore, even be p"recluded from going into the
question of malafides, nevertheless the matter has been
examined in extenso. (Para - 18) [971-G; 972-A]
0
State of Bihar and another vs. PP Sharma, /AS & Anr.
(1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 222 and All India. State Bank Officers'
Federation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 151
- relied on.
E
2.1 The question as to whether an effe~tive personal
hearing was given or not, is a question of fact and it is ·
noticed from a perusal of ttie record that s'uch hearing
was indeed given and that the appellan~ had exercised
his rights thereunder and it was only after the procedure
F under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board Act llad been followed, that the final
No~ification had been issued. It is found that the Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have
given categorical findings against the appellant on this
G score and this Court has no reason. tp .differ therefrom.
Nevertheless, the record has been examined by this Court
to re-assure itself as to the correctness of the Hig,h Court'~
decision. (Para - 19) [972-F, G; 973-A] ·
2.2 Merely because the word 'orders' has been
H
MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 953
OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

recorded by the Collector in the proceedings dated 16th A
January 2006, it does not imply that the matter remained
inchoate or that it envisaged a further hearing. The record
shows that comprehensive objections alongwith
documents had been filed by the appellants on 16th
January 2006 wherein after stating the history as to how B
they had become owners of the land they had given their
objections to its acquisition. (Para - 19) [973-D, E]
Shri Farid Ahmad Abdul Samad & Anr. vs. The Municipal
Corporation of City of Ahmedabad & Anr. (1976) 3 SCC 719;
Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (1995) 3 C
SCC 752; Om Prakash &Anr. vs. State of UP & Ors. (1998) 6
SCC 1; Union of India & Ors. vs. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC
14; Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishan Lal & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC
453; Hindustan Petroleum Cor. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur
Chennai & Ors·. (2005) 7 SCC 627 and PNaranayyapa & Anr. D
vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 7 SCC 578 - referred to.
2.3 The request for a personal hearing was
conditional in that if a clarification or additional documents
were required, time for that purpose be given. It ·is also
significant that the objections filed by the appellants form E
(almost exclusively) the basis for the present writ petition
inasmuch the fact that there was no need for the change
of the alignment of the trumpet interchange and the
access road or that alternative land was available for that
purpose, had been spelt out therein. The Collector in F
dealing with the objections had observed that several
objections/documents had been filed by the appellants
but were liable to rejection as the acquisition was
necessary for the Bangalore Airport. This Court is not
mindful of the fact that though the rights of an individual G
whose property is sought to be acquired must be
scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of
the public at large is not to be lightly quashed and
extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. (Para - 20)
[974-A, 8, C, D] H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S. C.R.

A Ramniklal N.Bhutta & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. (1997) 1 sec 134 - relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1979 of 2008.

B From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.9.2007 of
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 1578/
2007 (LA-KIADB)
Dushyant A. Dave, Shyam Diwan, Seema Bengani,
Animesh Kumar Sinha, Rana Mukherjee and Dr. Kailash Chand
c for the Appellants.
A. Sharan,A.S.G., P.P. Rao, Udaya Holla,Anitha Shenoy,
Nitin, Kiran Suri, S.J.Amith,Aparna Bhat, Dheeraj Nair,Ananya
Kumar, Ankur Saigal, Bina Gupta and Rashmi Rekha Devi for
D the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by >--
-

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the following facts.
E
3. The 3rd respondent, the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board (hereinafter called the 'Board') issued a
Notification dated 5th April 2004 under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 (for
F short the 'Act') proposing acquisition of land bearing serial Nos.
114,115 and 116 in village Kannamangala for the purpose of
constructing a trumpet interchange and access road from
National Highway No. 7 to the Bangalore Airport. This land was
notified for acquisition on the basis of a comprehensive
feasibility report submitted by the Technical Consultant for the
G
project, Sikon Private Ltd. The Karnataka State Industrial
Investment and Development Corporation (for short "KSllDC")
in the meantime proposed a change in the location of the trumpet
interchange and the access road on the ground that only 53
Acres of land needed for these two projects whereas the
H
M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 955
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
~ Notification was dated 5th April 2004 pertaining to 80 acres and A
27 gunthas was far in excess of the requirement and therefore
suggested reconsideration of the matter. Vide letter dated 24th
~·
\
,, August 2004 the Bangalore Airport Ltd. informed the KSllDC
that the proposed location of the trumpet interchange and the
access road was final and that there was no reason to make a B
change in their alignment. Notwithstanding the aforesaid
communication the Board issued a fresh Notification under
..,.. ,. section 28(1) of the Act on 5th December 2005 releasing the
land proposed to be acquired by the earlier Notification dated
5th April, 2004, and proposing acquisition of the land bearing c
serial Nos.118-119. The appellants who had in the meanwhile
purchased the aforesaid land vide two Registered Sale Deeds
dated 23rd and 25th November 2005 appeared in the enquiry
under Section 28(3) of the Act before the second respondent
i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and submitted their
D
objections, inter-alia, pointing out that the land now notified for
acquisition had been converted to non-agricultural use by orders
of the Revenue Authorities and that they proposed to put up a
commercial complex at that place. They also pointed out that
that there were other alternative Government lands available
for construction of the trumpet interchange and access road E
which could be utilized thus sparing the lands of the appellants
from acquisition. The second respondent, however, overruled
the objections on various grounds particularly highlighting that
the change had been necessitated as the earlier proposal had
-I
not been found to be technically sound. The Board also issued F
a notification dated 3rd June 2005 under section 28(4) of the
Act acquiring the land belonging to the appellants. The
appellants thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the
acquisition primarily on the ground that a large chunk of
Government land was available which could be utilized and that G
the acquisition of private land was therefore not justified. It was
also pleaded that the second respondent had not given a
personal hearing to the appellants as envisaged under section
28(3) of the Act and that the reports submitted by the said
respondent to the State Government did not adequately meet H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 4 S.C.R.

''1
A the issue raised before him. It was also submitted that the 'r
acquisition was motivated by malafides as there were no sound
and technical reasons for the sudden change in the alignment

~
that was now proposed. The learned Single Judge in his
judgment and order of 9th August 2007 found that the allegations
B of malafide had not bee.n made out and the contention that the
personal hearing envisaged under section 28(3) of the Act had
not been given also deserved to be rejected. The learned Judge
also opined that the change had been necessitated on account ~

of technical reasons and having held as above, dismissed the
c writ petition. The matter was then taken in appeal before the
Division Bench. Similar arguments were raised before the Bench
which in its judgment dated 20th September 2007 held as unper:
"On a thorough consideration of the documentary material
and the submission made at the Bar, we are of the view
D that the proposed change of locating T.I & A.R by the 1st
respondent is well-founded based on sound technical
reasons. It may be that because of change of location, the
appellants might lose lucrative and prime property but
nonetheless the individual interests have to yield to the
E public demands and public needs. If the lands are
converted to non-agricultural purpose, the appellants do
get the market value for their property. Therefore, we do
not find any reason to hold that the proposed change of
location of the T.I & A.R is actuated with any malafides.
~
F The appellant makes only a vague statement of alternate ~
t

availability of the Government lands without precisely
pointing out the particulars of the Government lands which
can suitably satisfy the needs. The contention that there
are alternate Government lands available for construction
G of T.I & A.R without need of acquisition of other private
lands, is not substar.tiated by any credible material.
The proceedings of the enquiry dated 16.1.2006 of the )..

2nd respondent discloses that the appellants were present
in the enquiry, submitted written objections with
H
M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 957
t OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
\

·-, documentary materials. The acquisition is resisted on the A
ground that the lands are converted for non-agricultural.
purpose and that they have borrowed loan from Andhra
Bank for putting up a shopping complex. The appellants
have not requested the 2nd respondent for an opportunity
of further hearing in the matter. It appears from the s
proceedings that the appellants had nothing more to say
than what is stated in their objection statement. There is
no request for further personal hearing. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the 2nd respondent did not provide necessary
opportunity of personal hearing as required under Section c
28(3) of the Act and the finding of the learned Single Judge
in this regard is sound and proper. We find no merit in the
appeal. Hence, dismissed.
4. It is in this situation that the present appeal is before us
by way of special leave. D
5. Mr. Dushyant Dave, the learned senior counsel for the
appellants has reiterated the arguments that had been raised
earlier. He has pointed out that the action of the respondents in
changing the location of the interchange and the access road
which had led to the acquisition of the appellants land was E
actuated by malafides and the explanation offered by the
respondents that this had been necessitated on account of
technical reasons was an after thought and not based on the
record. He has pointedly stressed that in its letter of 24th August
2004, the Airport Authority had emphatically denied the need F
for a change and it was in explicable as to what had prompted
a reversal of the decision a few days later. Mr. Dave has
accordingly placed reliance on Smt. S.R. Venkataraman vs.
Union of India & Anr. (1979) 2 SCC 491, State of Punjab
vs. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471, Collector (D.M.) vs. G
Raja Ram Jaiswal (1985) 3 SCC 1, S.N.Patil vs. Dr. M.M.
Gosavi & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 227 and B.E.M.L.Employees
House Bldg Coop. Society Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka
(2005) 9 SCC 248 to argue that even in cases of land acquisition
the bonafides of the acquiring authority had to be shown and H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
I
A that it was open to an aggrieved party to plead malice in fact or
law so as to avoid an acquisition. It has also been submitted
that the personal hearing envisaged under section 28(3) of the
Act was akin to a hearing under section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and that in the absence of any such
B effective hearing the acquisition was liable to fail. It has been
highlighted that the appellants had requested for a personal
hearing and it was thus obligatory on the Collector to give one
but he had bye-passed the provisions of section 28 (3) and
directly made an order under section 28(4) of the Act. It has
c accordingly been pleaded that in the light of the judgments
reported in Shri Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad & Anr. Vs. The
Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad and Anr.
(1976) 3 SCC 719, Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 752, State of Rajasthan vs.
Prakash Chand & Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 1, Union of India &
D Ors. vs. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14, Union of India &
Ors. vs. Krishan Lal & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 453 and
Hindustan Petroleum Cor.Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chennai
& Ors. (2005) 7 sec 627 an acquisition made without giving
an effective and meaningful personal hearing was liable to be
E quashed.
6. The arguments raised by Mr. Dave have been strongly
controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. It has
been pointed out at the very outset that the allegations of malafide
F were on the face of it unacceptable for the simple reason that
the proposal to change the alignment of the trumpet interchange
and access road had been initiated after a complete technical
re-survey and long before the date of the sales in favour of the
appellants and that in any case, allegations of malafides had to
G be leveled against some identified individual(s) who had to be
impleaded as a party to the litigation failing with the court was
precluded from examining this plea. Reliance for this submission
has been placed on Keshab Rao vs. State of West Bengal
(1973) 3 SCC 216, First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.
vs. Nirodhi ·Prakash Gangoli & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 160, Ajit
H
MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 959
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

Kumar Nag vs . G.M. (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldi A
& Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764 and Prakash Singh Badal & Anr.
Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 1. It has also been
pointed out that the personal hearing envisaged under Section
28(3) had indeed been given and as a token of this hearing the
appellants had signed the relevant proceedings. B
7. It would be seen that the primary issue raised by Mr.
Dave pertains to the malafides in the acquisition of the
~· appellants land. These ·allegations are sought to be proved by
inference on the premise (Mr. Dave's second argument) that
the change had been made suddenly and without necessity C
which showed the malafides of the respondents. We, therefore,
deem it appropriate to take up the first two arguments together.
It is Mr. Dave's contention that on the 24th August 2004 the
Airport Authority had itself ruled out any change and as such, a
complete volte face a week later showed the malafides on the D
part of the respondents. We are unable to accept this argument
-< as the facts depict quite a different picture. From the statement
of objections filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, the State of
Karnataka before the Karnataka High Court, we notice that the
lands covered by the Notification dated 6th April 2004 were E
proposed to be acquired based on the tentative requirements
indicated by the Airport Authority in its letter dated 2nd December
2002. After issuance of the aforesaid Notification a letter was
addressed to the Airport Authority to reappraise the matter
keeping in view the technical needs and requirements on which F
4111
a team of the Chief Executive Officer and Head Technical of the
Airport Authority, a representative of the KSllDC and other local
revenue officials visited the site on 1st September 2004 and
noticed that there were some adverse ground conditions and
difficulties such as the existence of a large pond which G
necessitated the change. It also appears that there was a great
deal of correspondence between all concerned and the final
~ decision was taken to change the location of the trumpet
interchange and access road after due deliberation, as has been
revealed from the letters dated 22nd April 2005, 14th July 2005
H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A and 19th July 2005. Our pointed attention has been brought to ..,
the letter of 19th July 2005 and we reproduce the relevant
contents hereinbelow:
"Trumpet Interchange (Tl) & Access Road:

B The earlier proposal envisaged acquisition of 80 acres
27 guntas of land for Tl and Access Road from the National
Highway upto the airport boundary based on the detailed
study conducted by Bangalore International Airport Ltd. _.
(BIAL) in consultation with the National Highway Authority
c of India (NHAI). However, at the time of physical survey of
the land, certain adverse ground conditions and difficulties
such as existence of large pond in the alignment of the
access road were encountered. This necessitated change
in the alignment of the access road and in turn, the location
of the Tl. In the meanwhile, the issue of construction Tl
D
through NHAI was discussed in the meeting at the Prime
Minister's Office on 29.11.2004 and also in the meeting ).
convened at NHAI on 8.12.2004. Based on the decisions
taken in these meetings, NHAI appointed International
Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (ICT) to carry out
E the General Alignment Drawing (GAD) as well as DP for
the Tl. Accordingly, GAD and a draft DPR have been
prepared by CT and submitted to NHAI. Based on these
NHAI has confirmed the details of coordinates of proposed
right of way (PROW) for land acquisition purpose and set
F out data for accommodating two future railway tracks. A ,..
copy of the letter dated 06.7.2005 received from NHAI in
this regard, is enclosed for ready reference (Enclosure-I).
Based on these details, BIAL with the assistance of Mis.
Secon Surveys has finalized the revised extent of land I
Sy. No. to be acquired and has confirmed vide their letter
dated 14. 7.2005. A copy of this letter is also enclosed
(Enclosure-II).
The details of villages, Sy. No. and extent in respect of
H modified requirement of lands to be acquired for Tl and
M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 961
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

Access Road as confirmed by BIAL are enclosed for your A
needful action (Enclosure-Ill).
8. Mr. Dave's peripheral argument that the change had
· been made on account of the objections raised by the
prospective land losers of the first acquisition is also
unacceptable as this objection had been made only with respect 8
to the land proposed for the special runway, a fact which had
also figured in the letter dated 19th July 2005. It is the admitted
' position that the land had been purchased by the appellants
vide sale deeds dated 23rd November 2005 and 26th November
2005 i.e. long after the final decision had been taken to acquire C
the land in the light of the revised proposal. It is also significant
that in the objections filed before the Land Acquisition Collector,
no malafide against any person has been alleged. We also find
that malafides have been alleged in paragraph 4.9 of the
pleadings filed before the Karnataka High Court. Paragraph D
4.9 is reproduced hereunder.
"4.9 It is important to note that lands covered under
Annexure-J and the lands now sought to be acquired are
adjacent to each other. However, apparently to help the
owners of the said lands sought to be denotified as per E
Annexure-K and with ulterior motives, there appears to be
a change of plan, for no ostensible reason at all, whereby
instead of locating the trumpet on the said Survey No.115,
116, 117, 121 (P) and 90 belonging to some influential
persons and Sy. No. 73 vast stretch of Government Gomal F
....
land, a plan is hatched up to denotify all the said survey
numbers including the Government land in Sy. No. 73 and
acquire Schedule A and B lands belonging to the 1st
petitioner company. This apparently has been done by
certain interested quarters in the respondents' offices with G
ulterior.motives with a view to help and to the advantage
of the owners of the said lands and others, to the detriment
of the interest of the petitioners. A proposal, therefore,
appears to have been mooted for a Trumpet interchange.
The proposal interchange has been sought to be followed H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2oon14 s.c.R.

A up by proposal as could be seen inAnnexure-K, the revised ,.
details for acquisition of lands, a true copy of which is
produced herewith as Annexure-K."
9. These allegations have been replied to in paragraphs
11 to 14 of the objections filed on behalf of the State Government,
B respondent No.1. These too are reproduced:
"11. It is submitted that, the extent and location of land
required for Tl was finalized after due consultation with 1
· BIOAL, NHAI and also the Railway Authorities after holding
c series of meetings with the concerned authorities in this
behalf. The process of acquisition of lands required is
completed. It is submitted that, there is only a national
interest involved in this project by all concerned and the
Project is certainly not aimed at helping any specific parties
or to affect someone as alleged by the petitioners in the
D
Writ Petition at Paras 4.6, 4.9, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14
and other parts of the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the
allegations of malafide, arbitrariness, highhandedness
etc., on the part of this respondent in notifying Schedule.
A and B properties for acquisition in the above case are
E hereby emphatically denied as baseless and without any
foundation. It is further submitted that the said averments
are made by the petitioners to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
The documents marked as Annexure -J and H in the Writ
Petition do not disclose the full facts of the case. In this
F context, it is relevant to make a mention about the ~
correspondence between BIAL and KSllDC dated
24.8.2004, 30.3.2005, 22.4.2005, 14. 7 .2005 and
19. 7 .2005 and marked at Annexures - R 1 to R.5
respectively with enclosures therein. These five documents
G bring out the development, subsequent to the Notification
of 7.4.2004, relied upon by the petitioners. As explained
in subsequent paragraphs of this petition, these five
documents explain the reason for relocation of the Tl. >-

12. With regard to the averments made in para 4.9 of the
H
I
MtS.' GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 963
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

Writ Petition, it is not correct to say that the lands covered A
...
under Annexure-J to the Notification dated 7.4.2004 and
the lands now being acquired are adjacent to each other.
The lands being acquired now are at a distance of about
350 meters away from the lands notified earlier. The lands
covered in the Preliminary Notification mentioned in 8
Annexure-J were proposed to be acquired based on the
tentative requirements indicated by BIAL in its letter dated
2nd December 2002 and a copy of the same is herewith
1
produced and marked as Annexure R6. After issuance of
Preliminary Notification, a letter was addressed to BIAL c
requesting to review thoroughly the scheme and reconfirm
the access road alignment, Tl position and the
corresponding actual/exact extent of land required
therefore to initiate final action towards acquisition of the
required additional lands. Subsequently a team comprising
D
of .the Chief Executive Officer and the Head Technical of
~
Bangalore International Airport Limited, a representative
of KSllDC and the local revenue officials visited the site
on 1st September 2004 and during the said visi, it was
noticed that there were certain adverse ground conditions
and difficulties such as existence of a large pond in the E
alignment of the access road, regarding existence of pond
and the map are produced herewith and marked as
Annexures R1 & RB respectively. Thus, this aspect has
necessitated marginal change in alignment of the access
road and in turn the location of the Tl. F
...
13. It is submitted that the petitioner refers to the 1st Survey
Report of Secon dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure H) to the
Writ Petition but makes no reference to the 2nd Revised
Report of Secon dated 30.3.2005 (Annexure R-2 to this
G
Statement of Objections). In the Preliminary Notification
dated 7.4.2004, a total extent of 242 acres 27.5. guntas
of land covering 7 villages viz. Segur, Hikkanahlli,
A
Mylanahalli, and Gangamuthanahalli were published. In
letter dated 23.8.2004 of KSllDC the BIAL was requested
H
.'
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
~

A to reconfirm the alignment of access road/Trumpet. ,.
Interchange.As already stated at para -12, at the request·
of KSllDC a 'joint inspection by a team comprising of the ,-'
Chief Executive Officer and the Head Technical of BIAL,
representative of l<SllDC and the local revenue officials
B was done. During the visit it was observed that there were f
'
certain adverse ground condition and difficulties such as '
existence of a large pond in the alignment of the access
road (Annexure R-3). Accordingly, the Secon furnished
~
the revised Survey Report on 30.3.2005 (Annexure R-2).
c BIAL in its letter dated 14.7.2005 confirmed the final
coordinates, Survey Nos. extent of land etc. It was on the
basis of this final plan for the Tl that the KIADB issued
·impugned Notification dated 5.12.2005. Strangely, the writ
petitioner has chosen not to bring these facts to the notice
of the Hon'ble Court. These facts clearly indicate -that the
D
petitioner is stating the facts to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
14. With regard to the averments made in para 4.12 of the ....
writ petition, it is submitted that Sy. No.133 belongs to
Sanjeevappa, son of K.Chowdappa Anjanamma, wife of
E later Munlyappa Venkatashamappa who are ordinary
citizens and not influential persons. Lands of Survey Nos.
115, 116 and 117 of Kannamangala Village which are
standing in the name of one Gullamma, wife of late R.
Annaiah is also an ordinary citizen and not influential
F person as alleged by the petitioners. Thus the contention
of the petitioners that there is conspiracy either to help a :...
few persons owning certain pieces of land or to deprive
the petitioners of their valuable lands with ulterior motives ..
etc. is untenable in law and also on facts. It will accordingly
be seen that issuance of Notification dated 2.6.2006 by
G
this respondent is in accordance with law and came to be
passed after observing and following all the necessary
formalities as contemplated in the provisions of the
).
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966.
It is submitted that as regards the permission/clarification
H
M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 965
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

by the Tahsildr, Devanahali Taluk from the Assistant A
..- Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division to auction
portion of land in Sy. No.73 of Kannamangala Village, the
matter is under consideration between Revenue
Department and KIADB. No final decision has yet been
taken to auction land in Sy. No. 73 is not required as per B
modified alignment, the proposal for auction was motted
but no final decision is yet taken. In fact Sy. No. 73 measures
nearly 94 and odd acres. It is further submitted that the
notice under Section 28 (2) of the KIADB Act, 1966
' (hereinafter called the 'Act') was issued in the name of Sri c
N.R. Prakash. This is so because his name was shown as
owner of the said lands in the relevant land records i.e.
RTC obtained as on the date of publication of Preliminary
Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act."
10. The reply comprehensively dispels any indication of D
malafides on the part of the respondents and categorically bears
out the circumstances and justification for the revised proposal,
and that no individual or party was responsible for the alleged
malafide change.
11. It is obvious from a reading of the pleadings quoted E
above that only vague allegations of malafides have been leveled
and that too without any basis. There can be two ways by which
a case of malafides can be made out; one that the action which
is impugned has been taken with the specific object of damaging
the interest of the party and, secondly, such action is aimed at F
..... helping some party which results in damage to the party alleging
malafides. It would be seen that there is no allegation whatsoever
in the pleadings that the case falls within the first category but
an inference of malafide has been sought to be drawn in the
course of a vague pleading that the change had been made to G
help certain important persons who would have lost their land
under the original acquisition. These allegations have been
replied to in the paragraph quoted above and reveal that the
land which had been denotified belonged to those who had
absolutely no position or power. In this view of the matter, the H
\--
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 4 S.C.R. 1-

i~
A judgments cited by Mr. Dave have absolutely no bearing of the
facts of the case. S.R.Venkataraman's case (supra) was a r
case where a Central Government officer challenged her
premature retirement in the High Court, making allegations of
malafides against one of her superior officers. She then
B approached this Court where th~ respondent Union of India
conceded that there was no material which could justify an order
. of premature retirement, resulting in an order by this Court in
her favour. In Gurdial Singh's case (supra) it was found that
the acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner was on
c account of the malafides on the part of the Chief Minister of the
State as the land owner was a political rival. In paragraph 10 it
was observed as under:
"By these canons it is easy to hold that where one of the
requisites of sections 4 or 6, viz., that the particular land
D is needed for the public purpose in view, is shown to be
not the goal.pursued but the private satisfaction of wreaking
vengeance, if the moving consideration in the selection of
>-
the land is an extraneous one, the law is derailed and the
exercise is bad. Not that this land is needed for the mandi,
E in the judgment of government, but that the mandi need is
hijacked to reach the private destination of depriving an
enemy of his land through back-seat driving of the statutory
engine! To reach this conclusion, there is a big 'if' to be
proved - if the real object is the illegitimate one of taking
F away the lands of respondents 1 to 21 to vent the hostility
of respondent 22, under the mask of acquisition for the i
~-
mandi."
12. In Raja Ram Jaiswal's case (supra) several
questions including one of malafides were raised before the
G Supreme Court. The facts of the case are however tell-tal~. It
appears that the Hindu Sahitya Sammelan Parishad had
obtained a large piece of land from the Municipal Board in 1953
for constructing a Hindi Sangrahalaya but the land remained
~
unutilized for a long time. The land belonging to the respondent
H Raja Ram Jaiswal, who was apparently a well connected
MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 967
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.)

· individual, was in the immediate vicinity oo which he proposed A
to construct an air-conditioned cinema hall. The Parishad
opposed the proposal on the ground that, that it would be
destructive of its cultural and academic environment. This
objection was overruled by the District Magistrate who granted
the requisite certificate for the construction of the cinema. The s
Parishad thereafter made an application to the Government for
acquiring the respondent's land as it was needed for the purpose
for the extension of the Hindi Sangrahalaya although it later
deviated from its stand and suggested that the additional portion
was needed for a Natyashala and Rangmanch. The Collector C· .
who was to initiate the proceedings was apparently reluctant to
do so on the plea that the Parishad had sought the acquisition .·
not because it required the land but because it wished.to staH ..
the construction of a cinema next door. Notwithsta~ding the: · ·
aforesaid facts, a Notification under Section 4(.1). of the Land.; ·
0
Acquisition Act was issued. This Notification was challe·nged · .. ,
and the matter ultimately came to the Supreme Co.urt and this .•
is what the Court had to say: ·
"It is well-settled that where power is conferred to achieve
a certain purpose, the power can be exercised only for -E
achieving that purpose. Section 4(1) confers power. on
the Government and the Collector to acquire land needed
for a public purpose. The power to acquire land is to be
exercised for carrying out public purpose. If the authorities
of the Sammelan cannot tolerate the existence of a cinema F
theatre in its vicinity, can it be said that such a purpose
would be a public purpose? May be the authority of the
Sammelan may honestly believe that the existence of a
cinema theatre may have the pernicious tendency to vit_iate
the educational and cultural environment of the institution
and therefore, it would like to wish away a cinema theatre · G
in its vicinity. That hardly constitutes public purpose. We .
have already said about its proclaimed need of land for
putting up Sangrahalaya. It is an easy escape route
whenever Sammelan wants to take_ over some piece of H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A land. Therefore, it can be fairly concluded that the
Sammelan was actuated by extraneous and irrelevant
considerations in seeking acquisition of the land and the
statutory authority having known this fact yet proceeded to
exercise statutory power and initiated the process of
B acquisition. Does this constitute legal mala fides?
Where power is conferreo to achieve a purpose it has
been repeatedly reiterated that the power. must be
exercised reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the ~

purpose. And in this context 'in good faith' means 'for
c legitimate reasons'. Where power is exercised for
extraneous or irrelevant considerations or reasons, it is
unquestionably a colourable exercise of power or fraud
on power and the exercise of power is vitiated. If the power
to acquire land is to be exercised, it must be exercised
D bona fide for the statutory purpose and for none other. If it
is exercised for an extraneous, irrelevant or non-germane
:..
consideration, the acquiring authority can be charged with
legal mala fides."
13. For arriving to its conclusion, the Court relied, amongst
E others, on the judgments of this Court in Gurdial Singh's case
aforesaid and on S.N.Patil's case (supra) where again specific
allegations were made and proved against the Chief Minister.
In BEML Employees House Building Co-operative Society
Ltd.'s case (supra) the acquisition was quashed on the ground
F that the land belonging to some persons who were similarly
situated as the appellant, had been released and that the State
Government had been unable to show any rational discrimination
between the case of the appellant and that of the other
landowners and that this act amounted to "hostile discrimination".
G .,\
14. It is no doubt open to the court to go into the question
of malafides raised by a litigant but in order to succeed, much
more than a mere allegation is required. Mr. Dave's inference :i..
of malafide based on the ground that the change in the location
of the trumpet interchange and the access road had been
H
M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 969
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

suddenly made without proper application of mind to help certain A
unidentified individuals resulting in the acquisition of the land
belonging to the appellants is, thus, without any factual basis.
15. Mr. Hulla, the learned counsel appearing for some of
the respondents has also placed reliance on Keshab Rao vs.
State of West Bengal (1973) 3 SCC ·216, First Land B
Acquisition Collector & Ors. vs. Nirdohi Prakash Ganguli
& Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 160, Ajit Kumar Nag vs. G.M.(PJ)
1.0.C.Ltd., Haldi & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764 and Prakash
Singh Badal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and & Ors. (2007)
1 sec 1 to submit that a mere allegation of malafide is not C
enough and cogent evidence thereof must be given. We
respectfully endorse the opinion expressed in these judgments
and reiterate that no material or details of malafides have come
on record in the present case. We nevertheless quote
paragraphs 56 and 57 from Ajit Kumar Nag's case (supra) to D
support our discussion:
56. In our view, neither the learned Single Judge nor the
Division Bench has committed any error of law and/or of
jurisdiction which deserves interference in exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the E
Constitution. As is clear, the situation has been created by
the appellant. It was .very grave and serious and called for
immediate stern action by the General Manager. Exercise
of extraordinary power in exceptional circumstances under
Standing Order 20(vt) in the circumstances, cannot be F
said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or ma/a fide. It is well
settled that the burden of proving ma/a fide is on the person
making the allegations and the burden is "very heavy"
(vide E.P Royappa v. State of TN. ( 1974) 4 SCC 3)
There is every presumption in favour of the administration G
that the power has been exercised bona fide and in good
faith. It is to be remembered that the allegations of ma/a
fide are often more easily made than made out and the
very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a
high degree of credibility. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated in H
970 SUPREME. G;OURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A Gu/am Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra ((1976) 1 SCC
800 p.802, para 2) : "It (ma/a fide) is the last refuge of a
losing litigant."
57. We hold clause (vt) of Standing Order 20 of the Certified
Standing Orders of the respondent Corporation valid,
B constitutional and intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
We also hold the action taken by the General Manager of
the respondent Corporation dismissing the appellant-
petition'er from service as ·1egal and lawful. We thus see ..
no substance either in the appeal or in the writ petition.
c and both are, therefore, dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no
order as to costs.
In the light of the above, no further discussion on this aspect
is called for.
D
16. The learned counsel for the respondents has also taken ~

pains to point out that in the absence of specified individuals,
who are to be made parties in a litigation alleging malafides,
an enquiry into such an allegation was impermissible. The
E learned counsel has placed reliance on State of Bihar and
another vs. P.P.Sharma, IAS & Anr. (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC
222 and All India State Bank Officers' Federation & Ors.
vs ..Union of India & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 151. In P.P.Sharma's
case (supra) it was observed that :
F "It is a settled law thatthe person against whom malafides
or bias was imputated should be impleaded eo nomine
as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an
opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence
..
no enquiry i·nto .those allegations would be made.
G Otherwise it itself is violative of the principle of natural
justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an
opportunity." I
;.. l

17. A similar opinion was expressed in All India State
Bank Officers. Federatfon & Ors. (supra) in the following
H . ; .. (
;
MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 971
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
~

words: A
"In view of the aforesaid explanation of the respondent-
Bank, which we see no reason to disbelieve, it is clear
that the petitioners have made baseless and reckless
allegations of mala fide. Respondents 4 and 5 obviously
had no direct or indirect role to play either in the formulation B,
of the policy or in the memorandum being placed as a
table item to be taken up for consideration in the meeting
held on 7.3.1999. The modification was approved by the
Chairman and all the Directors who were present in the
meeting of the Board. For an allegation of mala fide to c
succeed it must be conclusively shown that respondents
4 and 5 wielded influence over all the members of the
Board, who were present in the said meeting. No such
allegation has been made. The decision to modify the
promotion policy was taken by a competent authority, D
,..i..
namely, the Central Board in a duly constituted meeting
held on 7.3.1989 and we are unable to accept that this
change in the policy was brought about solely with a view
to help Respondents 4 and 5.
There is yet another reason why this contention of the E
petitioners must fail. It is now well settled law that the person
against whom mala tides are alleged must be made a
party to the proceeding. The allegation that the policy was
..... amended with a view to benefit Respondents 4 and 5
would amount to the petitioners contending that the Board F
of Directors of the Bank sought to favour Respondents 4
and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it.
Neither the Ch~irman nor the Directors, who were present
. in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents.
This being so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise G
the allegations of mala tides, which allegations, in fact,
are without merit."
18. As observed above, the appellants have not identified
any person who had been instrumental in harming their cause.
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A We would, therefore, even be precluded from going into the
question of malafides although we have nevertheless examined
the matter in extenso.
19. Mr. Dave has argued with emphasis, that the personal
hearing envisaged to an interested person under section 28(3)
B of the Act had in fact not been given to the appellants and that
the proceedings held by the Collector pursuant to the notice
dated 12th December 2005 were a mere eye wash. He has
pointed out that as per the written objections filed by the
•
petitioner on 15th January 2006, a specific request had been
c made for a personal hearing, but notwithstanding the request
the Collector gave his decision on the objections on 2nd February
2006 and the final Notification was issued on 2nd June 2006. t~
"
To supplement his argument that in the absence of a personal
hearing under section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, or section
D 28(3) of the Act stand vitiated, Mr. Dave has placed reliance on
Shri Farid Ahmad Abdul Samad & Anr. Vs. The Municipal ~

Corporation of City of Ahmedabad & Anr. (1976) 3 SCC
719, Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
(1995) 3 SCC 752, Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &
E Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 1, Union of India & Ors. vs. Mukesh Hans
(2004) 8 SCC 14, Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishan Lal &
Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 453, Hindustan Petroleum Cor. Ltd. vs.
Darius Shapur Chennai & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627 and
P.Naranayyapa & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 7 SCC ,,
578. Concededly, Section 28 (3) of the Act gives a right of r
F
personal hearing to the owner of the land or any other interested
person and the judgments cited by the learned counsel therefore
eminently support the appellant's case. The question as to
whether an effective personal hearing was given or not, however
is a question of fact and we notice from a perusal of the record
G
that such hearing was indeed given and that the appellant had
exercised his rights thereunder and it was only after the
).
procedure under section 28(3) had been followed, that the final
Notification had been issued. We find that the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have given
H
MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 973
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BED!, J.l

categorical findings against the appellant on this score and we A
have no reason to differ therefrom. We have nevertheless
examined the record to re-assure ourselves as to th.e
correctness of the High Court's decision. After the objections/
documents had been filed, the file was taken up by the Collector
on 15th January, 2005 on which date Shri N.R. Prakash B
representing the land owners was not present. The Collector,
after examining the facts of the case, adjourned the case to
24th January 2005 for 'orders' in accordance with Section 28(3)
of the Act and the final orders on the proceedings under section
28(3) of the Act were, in fact, made on the 2nd February 2005. C
Mr. Dave has emphasized that as the matter had been adjourned
on 15th January 2005 for 'orders' there was absolutely no
justification in finalizing the proceedings on 2nd February 2006
without giving a hearing to the appellants. We observe, however,
that merely because the word 'orders' has been recorded in the D
proceedings of 15th January 2006, it does not imply that the
matter remained incohate or that it envisaged a further hearing.
The record shows that comprehensive objections alongwith
documents had been filed by the appellants on 15th January
2005 wherein after stating the history as to how they had become E
owners of the land they had given their objections to its
acquisition and in paragraphs 19 and 21 stated as unde.r:
"In the event of your requiring any clarification, we also
request you to offer us a personal hearing in the above
matter for us to place the above facts for your kind F
consideration.
We do hope that justice would be done and valuable
investment in the land would be protected and we are
permitted to carry on the construction of the Shopping
Complex as planned towards which the necessary finance G
have been made availab!e to us by Andhra Bank.
We have to request you to provide us with a personal
hearing in the matter, as also permit us to file any other
documents or additional statements as may be required".
H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 20. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that the
request for a personal hearing was conditional in that if a
clarification or additional documents were required, time for that
purpose be given. It is also significant that the objections filed
by the appellants form (almost exclusively) the basis for the
B present writ petition inasmuch the fact that there was no need
for the change of the alignment of the trumpet interchange and
the access road or that alternative land was available for that
purpose, had been spelt out therein. The Collector in dealing
with the objections had observed that several objections/
C documents had been filed by the appellants but were liable to
rejection as the acquisition was necessary for the Bangalore
Airport. We are also not mindful of the fact that though the rights
of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must
be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the
public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary
D reasons must existfor doing so. This is the ratio of the judgment
of this Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 134 wherein it has been
held as under:

E "Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a
time has come where the courts should keep the larger
public interest in mind while exercising their power of
granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is
discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of
F interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a
legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public
purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest
coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in
. a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders,
more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally
G
discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest
vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power
under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary
powers. It may even be' open to the High Court to direct,
in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on
H
MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 975
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

account of non-compliance with some legal requirement A
that the person interested shall also be entitled to a
particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump
sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation
payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate
relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition B
proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is
ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests.
Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say.
We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly
borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges C
to acquisition proceedings."
21. We thus find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.
D