P. PARTHASARATHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

                    [2011] 10 S.C.R. 599


                    P. PARTHASARATHY                              A
                               V.
              STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
               (SLP (Civil) No. 19510 of 2011)
                      AUGl:JST 24, 2011
                                                                  B
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                  ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

      Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - s.
28(4) - Final Notification issued under- Legality and validity C
of - Issuance of Notification u/s. 28 (1) to acquire land of the
petitioner - No objection filed by the petitioner, -whereupon
Notification u/s. 28 (4) issued - Challenged by filing writ
petition uls. 28(4) - Single Judge of the High Court quashed
the Notification u/s. 28(4) and directed the Land Acquisition o.
Officer to -provide opportunity to the petitioner and also to
identify the land and thereafter, to proceed with the matter - .
 Subsequent thereto, land was identified and objections of the
petitioner were considered and actual portion of/and required
for formation of road was notified - Issuance of final notification E
 u/s. 28 (4) - Writ Petition by the petitioner challenging the
 validity of the said Notification - Dismissed by the Single
Judge of the High Court holding that the order of Single Judge
in the earlier writ petition had become final and binding -
 Division Bench upheld the order - On appeal, held: Land F
 which was sought to be acquired by the respondent was
identifiable - Petitioner was given opportunity to file his
objections which were considered - Land was resuNeyed and
thereafter, the land sought to be acquired was identified, which
included the land of the petitioner - Thus, the entire pre- G
conditions and formalities laid down uls. 28 were duly
complied with and were adhered to and followed - 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
                               599                                  H
    600         SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2011) 10 S.C.R.

A in any manner mislead the petitioner regarding the identity of
  the land which is corroborated by the fact of the detailed
  enquiry conducted in his presence - Petitioner was able to file
  a detailed and effective reply to the show cause notice issued
  to him - Thus, final Notification uls. 28 (4) having been validly
B issued, no interference is called for.
        Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay and Ors./AIR
    1960 SC 1203 - Followed.
      Narendrajit Singh and Anr. vs. The State of U.P. and Anr.
C (1970) 1 SCC 125: 1970 (3) SCR 278; Madhya Pradesh
  Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shafi and Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 168:
  1992 (1) SCR 657; Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. vs. M.P.
  Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 306
  - Distinguished.
D
        State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. All India Manufacturers
    Association and Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 683: 2006 (1) Suppl.
    SCR 86 - Cited .
                           Case Law Reference:
E
             2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 86 Cited .              Para 13
    ......   1970 (3) SCR 278        Distinguished .     Para 20
             1992 (1) SCR 657        Distinguished.      Para 21
F            (2005) 1o sec 306       Distinguished.      Para 22
             AIR 1960 SC 1203        Followed            Para 17
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
    19510 of 2011.
G
        From the Judgment & Order dated 15.6.2011 of the High
    Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 3527 of
    2009.

             P.P. Rao, K.G. Sadashivaiah, Kashi Vishweshwar, A.
H
  P. PARTHASARATHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 601
                    ORS.
Sumathi, Satish Kumar, Anjali Chauhan, S. Nanda Kumar for           A
the Petitioner.

    Dushyant A. Dave, K.T. Anantharaman, R.V.S. Naik, Guru
Raj Deshpande, Vasudevan Raghavan, Anitha Shenoy,
Sandeep Patil for the Respondents.                                  B

    The following order of the Court was delivered

                            ORDER
    1. This special leave petition is directed against the          c
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   D
and validity of the final notification dated 6.2.09 issued under
sub-section (4) of Section 28 ofthe Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 {hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was
challenged upheld the validity and legality of the aforesaid
notification issued by the respondent/State exercising the          E
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,          F
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       G
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        H
     602       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011) 10 S.C.R.


  A 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 Singie Judge also
     gave a liberty to the respondents to identify the land which they
     propose to acquire. It was also held therein by the learned
  B 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.
  c 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
  0 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
  E 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
    deleted. He further stated in the said reply filed that the plan
     prepared for road including the peripherial road junction,
  F 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
· G 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
 H · on record. It appears the petitioner was represented by his
 P. PARTHASARATHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA &                     603
                   ORS.

counsel in the said enquiry proceedings. The concerned officer       A
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.                              B

     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 that day, the concerned persons including the petitioner
and others were present. In the said survey, the previous C
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 D
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 . E
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.       F

      7. The validity of the aforesaid notification was challenged
by filing a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. The learned
Single Judge who heard the writ petition, after hearing the
counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the writ petition       G
by h·is 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 th~id order, the land having been                H
    604     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A 1 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.
B
          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
C 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 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
D 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
E 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.
F      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
G 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
H for the respondent no. 5 and Ms. Shenoy, learned counsel
 P. PARTHASARATHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA &                      605
                   ORS.

:appearing for the State have refuted the aforesaid submissions        A
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              B
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          C
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.
                                                                       D
      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 Kamataka 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 that the concerned        E
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
                                                                       F
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          G
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           H
    606      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   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 pursuant to the orders of the High Court
s   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
c   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
D 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.

E         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
F   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
G 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
H digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was
 P. PARTHASARATHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA &                    607
                   ORS.

adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired.      A
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           B
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.

      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    C
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      D
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           E
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        F
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 appearing for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable     G
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   H
    608      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A 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
8   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
c Others Vs. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Others
  reported in (2005) 10 sec 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
D and in that 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
E 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
F 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
G costs.
          26. Since we have dismissed this petition, any interim
    order passed by the High Court shall also stand vacated by this
    order.

H N.J.                                            SLP dismissed.