Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.04.2009 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the BMICP’) and the Preliminary and Final Notifications issued by the State of Karnataka on 19.12.2009 and 02.06.2009 vide Annexure B and R respectively. Petitioner has also sought for a declaration that his converted land bearing Sy.No.154/10 measuring 2 acres of Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, is not under acquisition as per the Preliminary Notification. 2. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner was before this court in W.P.No. 24867/2005 challenging the Final Notification along with the Corrigendum and sketch prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB. The question raised before the court was with regard to the identity of the land as to whether the land belonging to the petitioner herein Sri. P. Pathasarathy was under acquisition or was it the land belonging to the 4th respondent therein Sri Puttegowda. In this background, this Court in paragraph-11 of the writ petition observed as under: “..the facts are altogether different in the case on hand, Indeed, it is not a case where the land belonging either to the petitioner or respondent No.4 is identifiable. It is also not known as to what is the extent of land which the petitioner or respondent No.4 are likely to lose, inasmuch as, what has been shown is Sy.No.154/10 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas is sought to be acquired, when after the purchase by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 the same is sub-divided and phoded into 154/15 and 154/16. When the extent of land belonging to the petitioner or respondent No.4 cannot be identified, I am of the view that on that score, the acquisition is liable be interfered….” “Consequently, the following order is passed. .(1) Petition is allowed. .(2) The final notification at Annexure-D as well as the consequential corrigendum at Annexure-M stand quashed. .(3) It is open for the respondent Board to identify the land which they propose to acquire. .(4) The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 shall take this proceedings as notice to them and file and their objections within a period of four weeks from today. .(5) Neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 need to wait for the certified copy of this order.” 3. .(4) The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 shall take this proceedings as notice to them and file and their objections within a period of four weeks from today. .(5) Neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 need to wait for the certified copy of this order.” 3. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB has conducted a fresh enquiry after giving notice to the concerned parties, including the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein. As can be seen from the impugned order, the land was needed for the purpose of peripheral road at the interchange and the same is identified by preparing a sketch on measurement by the surveyor. Land required for the road has been identified on joint measurement in the presence of the parties. The Land Acquisition Officer has come to the conclusion that 2 acres 33 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.154/10 as identified after measurement and after preparation of the sketch by the surveyor is required for the public purpose for formation of the road and the objections raised by the respective parties were only individual grievances which could not prevail over the public purpose. Pursuant to the said order which is passed in exercise of the powers under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, the State Government has issued the impugned Final Notification dated 02.06.2009 acquiring the said portion of 2 acres 33 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.154/10. Aggrieved by this the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. V. Lakshminarayana is that the description of land as mentioned in the Final Notification is different from the description made in the Preliminary Notification. He submits that what was proposed to be acquired was not the land belonging to the petitioner but is now acquired by issue of Final Notification is that land of the petitioner and this is sought to be done by the process of passing an order under Section 28(3) of the Land Acquisition Act conducting fresh measurement preparing fresh sketch which is impermissible in law. It is his contention that petitioner is the owner in possession of 2 acres of converted land comprised in SyNo.154/10 out of 5 acres 26 guntas and this land was not notified for acquisition under the Preliminary Notification and therefore it was not open to the authorities to issue a Final declaration to acquire the land of the petitioner. To substantiate this contention, he draws the attention of the Court to the Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1998 wherein the land proposed to be acquired is shown as Sy.No.154 and the extent is indicated as 2 acres 33 guntas comprised within the boundaries mentioned as follows: “East by – Property bearing Sy.No.153 West by – Remaining property bearing Sy.No.154 North by – Property bearing Sy.No.147 South by – Road” He also draws the attention of the Court to the Final Notification which discloses the boundaries as under: “East by – Part of Sy.No.153, 154/10 West by – Remaining portion of Sy.Nos154/10. 154/11, 154/12, 154/9 and 155. North by – Sy.No.151. South by – Road” Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the change of the boundaries of the land acquired as mentioned in the Final Notification the acquisition of the land Sy.No.144/10 gets shifted to the eastern side so as to cover the land of the petitioner whereas what was proposed earlier was the western portion of Sy.No.154/10 which belonged to the 4th respondent-Sri. Puttegowda. 5. Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, has contended that the publication of 4(1) Notification with precise description of the property is a mandatory requirement as stipulated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and if there is any ambiguity or defect in the 4 (1) Notification published, the same cannot be cured at the stage of 6(1) Notification. Hence, he submits, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. He has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of this contention:- (1) The Collector (Dist. Magistrate), Allahabad & Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal ( AIR 1985 SC 1622 ) (2) Narendrajit Singh & Another Vs. the State of U.P. & Another ( 1970(1) SCC 125 ) (3) Jammada Aiyappa Vs. State of Karnataka & Another (1979(1) Kar. L.J. 401) (4) R.L. Jain (D) by L.R.S. Vs. DDA & Others ( 2004(4) SCC 79 ) (5) Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. & Another Vs. the State of U.P. & Another ( 1970(1) SCC 125 ) (3) Jammada Aiyappa Vs. State of Karnataka & Another (1979(1) Kar. L.J. 401) (4) R.L. Jain (D) by L.R.S. Vs. DDA & Others ( 2004(4) SCC 79 ) (5) Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. & Another Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) ( AIR 1990 SC 731 ) 6. He has also contended that the provisions relating to compulsory acquisition have to be construed strictly and in support of this contention, he has relied on the following judgments:- (1) Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another [ (2007) 3 SCC 470 ) (2) Bharat Petrolirum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maddula Ratnavalli & Others [ AIR 1967 SC 1074 . (3) Khub Chand & Others Vs. State of Rajastan & Others ( AIR 1967 SC 1074 ). 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing for the beneficiaries of the acquisition, has contended that the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act refers to Sy.No.154 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas without specifying any particular sub division. The names of all the owners and occupants including that of the petitioner are mentioned in the Preliminary Notification and this an effective opportunity was provided to all the interested persons to filed objections and they in fact filed objections and resisted the proposed acquisition. He submits, the petitioner having challenged the Final Notification in the earlier Writ Petition by taking up the same contention this court, after noticing the confusion in the identity of the land has directed a fresh enquiry by the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, with prior notice to both parties with a further direction to identify the land that is required for the project. Accordingly, fresh enquiry has been held and the objections raised by the land owners have been repelled and thereafter the impugned Final Notification is issued. Hence, there is no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner. 8. He has further contended that the very fact that the name of the petitioner has been notified while issuing the Preliminary Notification as a person likely to be effected by the proposed acquisition disclosed that he was put on notice of the proposed acquisition of a portion of the land in Sy.No.154. 8. He has further contended that the very fact that the name of the petitioner has been notified while issuing the Preliminary Notification as a person likely to be effected by the proposed acquisition disclosed that he was put on notice of the proposed acquisition of a portion of the land in Sy.No.154. As he had made a complaint before this Court that he did not have proper opportunity to file his objections, his writ petition was allowed. It is his further contention that no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the petitioner as, a fresh opportunity is given and after hearing the petitioner and after conducting a joint inspection in the presence of all the parties and after taking note of the confusion with regard to the actual sub divisions, the land required came to be identified and a detailed order has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in this regard. In support of his contention that any such defect in the Preliminary Notification will not affect the acquisition, he has placed reliance on the decision in Babu Barkya Thakur Vs. State of Bombay and Others ( AIR 1960 SC 1203 ). He has also contended that the Preliminary Notification has specified the locality and has even mentioned the survey number clearly and thereafter the survey is made and enquiry is held. Exact portion of the land that is required is ascertained and the final declaration is issued consistent therewith and therefore no exception can be taken for the final declaration issued in the present case. In this regard he has places reliance on the decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Others ( AIR 1966 SC 1593 ). Counsel representing the KIADB, submits that after issuing notice to all the interested persons including the petitioner, the land is identified, sketch is prepared and the final declaration is issued, strictly complying with the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition filed earlier. He has placed reliance on the decision in Basavaraj Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka & Others [ 1981 (1) Kar.L.J 481 ] to contend that mistake in mentioning survey number in the Preliminary Notification could be corrected in the course of enquiry and the correct survey number of the land and its boundaries could be mentioned in the Final Declaration made. 9. State of Karnataka & Others [ 1981 (1) Kar.L.J 481 ] to contend that mistake in mentioning survey number in the Preliminary Notification could be corrected in the course of enquiry and the correct survey number of the land and its boundaries could be mentioned in the Final Declaration made. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the materials on record the points that arise for consideration in this case are:- “(i) Whether the order passed under Section 28(3) by the Land Acquisition Officer and the consequent Final Declaration issued under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act are vitiated? (ii) Whether the defects pointed out in the Preliminary Notification in mentioning the boundary as eastern portion in Sy.No.154 whereas what is acquired by the Final Declaration being the western portion vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings?” 10. In the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the K.I.A.D. Act, produced at Annexure-B, the survey number is mentioned as 154 with total extent shown as 14 acres 7 guntas and the required extent as 2 acres 33 guntas. The portion required is indicated by mentioning the boundaries and in the column pertaining to the owners and occupants, the name of the petitioner is found at Sl.No.10. In fact, the names of all the persons who are interested in this survey numbers are mentioned under the head ‘Owners/Occupants’ of the land. If one goes by the boundaries mentioned in the Preliminary Notification of Sy.No.154 what was proposed to be acquired by the Notification under Section 28(1) falls to the eastern side of the survey number. However, when the Final Declaration was made after holding enquiry and after surveying the land and taking out exact measurement including joint measurement, the authorities have found that the portion of 2 acres 43 guntas required falls in the eastern portion of the land bearing Sy.No.154/10. In fact, this was the grievance made by the petitioner before this Court in the earlier round of Writ Petition in W.P.No.24867/2005. In fact, this was the grievance made by the petitioner before this Court in the earlier round of Writ Petition in W.P.No.24867/2005. As already adverted to herein above having noticed this confusion and the absence of opportunity given to the parties in identifying the exact portion that was required for the purpose of the project, this Court has, after setting aside the Final Declaration, directed the respondent-Board to identify the land which they proposed to acquire making it clear that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 herein shall take this proceeding as notice to them and file their objection shall take this proceeding as notice to them and file their objections within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order. It is in this back ground that the petitioner and the 4th respondent have filed objections. The Land Acquisition Officer has identified the land taking the help of the Surveyor and after considering the objections has passed the order repelling the objections and recommending acquisition of land for the purpose of formation of road. 11. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the land sought to be acquired was not at all subject matter of proposed acquisition as per the Preliminary Notification and that the petitioner is taken by surprise as his land is for the first time sought to be acquired by issuing a Final Declaration. In fact, the consolidated Sy.No.154 has been mentioned in the Preliminary Notification. The name of the petitioner was also mentioned as Anubhavadhar along with the 4th respondent and others. Even assuming that there was some error in not mentioning the boundaries accurately it cannot prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings, particularly because petitioner was provided an opportunity by this Court directing the Land Acquisition Officer to identify the land and provide an opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and thereafter take fresh action. Therefore, if the authorities, after providing fresh opportunity to the petitioner have identified the exact location in Sy.No.154 which was required for formation of the road and have thereafter published the Final Declaration, it cannot be said that the Final Notification issued is inconsistent with the Preliminary Notification and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings stand vitiated. 12. Therefore, if the authorities, after providing fresh opportunity to the petitioner have identified the exact location in Sy.No.154 which was required for formation of the road and have thereafter published the Final Declaration, it cannot be said that the Final Notification issued is inconsistent with the Preliminary Notification and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings stand vitiated. 12. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not lend support to his contention inasmuch as none of the decisions have laid down a proposition that such defect in the Preliminary Notification in the circumstances as are obtained in the present case will prove fatal to the acquisition of land for public purpose. In fact, in the case of Narendrajit Singh & Another Vs. The State of U.P. & Another ( 1970(1) SCC 125 ), on which the petitioner has placed reliance, the facts as presented there were that the Preliminary Notification did not specify the lands proposed for acquisition. The Notification merely said that the lands mentioned in the schedule were needed and the schedule in turn contained only the District. Paragana and the Mousa and the approximate area. It was stated in the Notification that the plan of the lands might be inspected in the office of the Collector of Rampur. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) was defective and was not in conformity with the provision contained under Section 4(1). It is also necessary to notice here that in the said case, the Government had invoked urgency clause under Section 17(4) and enquiry under Section 5A was also dispensed with depriving the landowners of all the opportunity. Hence, the said decision has no bearing on the facts of the present case. Similarly, in the case of Jammada Aiyappa Vs. State of Karnataka & Another (1979(1) Kar.L.J 401), the facts were that the Preliminary Notification was issued in respect of Sy.Nos.71/1, 71/3, 73/1 and 73/6, whereas the Final Notification came to be published in respect of Sy.Nos.71/5, 71/4 & 73/1. In such circumstances, this Court observed in paragraph 4 as under: .“......It is of importance to note that the enquiry under S.5A of the Act was held with reference to the lands notified in the Preliminary Notification. In such circumstances, this Court observed in paragraph 4 as under: .“......It is of importance to note that the enquiry under S.5A of the Act was held with reference to the lands notified in the Preliminary Notification. With reference to those lands only the objector, namely the petitioner filed his objections and the enquiry was held only with reference to the lands mentioned in the Preliminary Notification. That being so, it is not at all open for the State Government to include the lands in the Final Notification which were not included in the Preliminary Notification. …….” 13. In the present case, the facts are different in as much as though the Final Notification and the Preliminary Notification do not relate to the same portion comprised in Sy.No.154, petitioner had notice of the proposed acquisition as his name for the undivided survey number was mentioned and more particularly he was put on notice after the mater was sent back by this Court with a direction the identify the land providing opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. 14. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. & Another vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) ( AIR 1990 SC 731 ) strongly relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the question therein in regard to the compensation payable to the appellants therein in respect of certain lands belonging to them and about the relevant date of 4(1) Notification for the purpose of computing the market value as there were three Notifications issued under Section 4(1). Likewise, the other judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner do not also support his contention. Hence, it is unnecessary to refer to all them individually as they are not of any relevance for the present purpose. 15. However, as rightly brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the respondents, in the case Babu Barkya thakur vs. State of Bombay and Others ( AIR 1960 SC 1203 ) it is held that any and every defect in the Preliminary Notification will not prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings as long as the Notification specifies the locality, the survey number and provides sufficient opportunity to the persons interested and affected to put-in-their objections. 16. 16. In this case petitioner had the benefit of an order by this Court in W.P.No.24867/2005 which directed the Land Acquisition Officer to provide opportunity to him, identify the land and thereafter proceed in the matter. This order has attained finality. Pursuant to the said order, the land is identified, his objections are considered and the actual portion of the land required for formation of the road is notified. This being the position petitioner cannot now be heard to say that since there was some difference in the full details and particulars of the portion required in the Preliminary and the Final Declaration, the entire acquisition shall stand vitiated. This contention is too technical and cannot be accepted to set aside an acquisition made for public purpose. 17. Hence, in my considered view, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is therefore dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.