JUDGMENT : Wit petitioners – six in number belonging to one family have questioned the legality of notification issued under sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The main grievance on behalf of the petitioners as submitted by Sri. Vardhaman V Gunjal, learned counsel, is that the petitioners have been clamped with the notice under sub-section (6) of section 28 of the Act even without the lands of the petitioners figuring in either preliminary notification under section 28(1) of the Act or in individual notices in terms of section 28(2) of the Act and without affording an opportunity of hearing and to the knowledge of the petitioners, their names do not figure even in declaration under section 28(4) of the Act, but are being surprised by a notice under sub-section (6) of section 28 of the Act, calling upon them to handover possession of subject land on the premise that the lands have vested in the State Government etc., 3. A notice issued under sub-section (6) of section 28 of the Act, if is not preceded by requirement of preliminary notification, individual notices to the land owners, opportunity of making representations and hearing before the land acquisition officer and thereafter report and informed declaration by the State Government which are all sine qua non and if it is only after all these stages the vesting the land under section 28(5) of the Act through publication in the official gazette of the declaration etc., can take place and when all these requirements have to be complied with, in their absence a notice straight away under section 28(6) of the Act is not only bad in law but also not rule conforming and a notice of this nature had been issued and respondents had been called upon to voice their objections, it is nothing short of trampling of the rule of law by violating mandatory statutory provisions. 4. 4. In the wake of the very lukewarm response on behalf of the respondents to the notices issued to them of the registering of this writ petition before this court, calling upon them to respond to the petition and non filing of the statement of objections by the respondents and this court noticing that the manner of functioning of the Board i.e., the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board left much to be desired, had passed the following order on 23.11.2010. “This writ petition was admitted on 23.10.2010 by issue of rule and the interim order granted earlier was extended pending disposal of the writ petition. First Respondent – State Government is represented by Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, learned Additional Government Advocate, third respondent – Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited is represented by M/s. Aaren Associates, Advocates whereas second respondent – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and its special land acquisition officer though served has blissfully remained non-responsive. Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent – State and Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, pray for some more time to file counter as the process of getting instructions from the respective clients is on etc., A further week’s time is granted to file objections, if any, on behalf of the respondents. The second respondent – Karnataka Industrial Areas development Board which proclaims it is a statutory authority brought into existence for acquiring private lands to develop it as an industrial area, having indulged in all sorts of illegal activities, found to have misused the powers and authority to benefit a few private industries at the cost of general members of the public by acquiring their lands in the name of public interest, if have adopted an attitude of evasiveness, it is high time that such Board warrants to be wound up. Learned Advocate General is directed to take notice of this petition to examine this aspect of the matter and to assist the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish copy of the writ petition to learned Advocate General. List next week.” 5. It is in this background, the matter is coming up for hearing today. 6. Learned Advocate General is directed to take notice of this petition to examine this aspect of the matter and to assist the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish copy of the writ petition to learned Advocate General. List next week.” 5. It is in this background, the matter is coming up for hearing today. 6. Learned Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the State Government and has submitted that while there is no impediment for the State Government or the Board to place the facts and figures relating to the instances of acquisition proceedings initiated by the Board and the lands acquired by the State Government for the purpose of developing the area as an industrial area by the Board etc., and some time is required to place all the necessary information before the court, points out that in the instant case, that aspect alone is no necessary to keep this matter pending, particularly, as it has been noticed by the respondents – State Government and the Board that there is a clear lapse or shortcoming in the instant case on the part of the State and the Board and as to whether by inadvertence or mistake, it is a fact that the subject land of the petitioners did not find place in the preliminary notification issued under section 28(1) of the Act and the notice issued straight away under section 28(6) of the Act cannot be defended as valid in law. 7. In view of the fair submission made by the learned Advocate General, Sri. Vardhaman V Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that if the State Government is ready and willing to go through the process of acquisition afresh in accordance with law, in respect of the petitioners’ lands then the petitioners may not press for grant of alternative prayer prayed for in this Writ petition and will rest content if the notification under section 28(4) of the Act insofar as it relates to the petitioners’ lands are concerned is quashed. 8. Learned Advocate General points out that there is a technical impediment for this to happen as the petitioners have neither prayed for this relief nor have produced a copy of the declaration issued under section 28(4) of the Act. 9. Objection is well taken. However, to make amends, Sri. 8. Learned Advocate General points out that there is a technical impediment for this to happen as the petitioners have neither prayed for this relief nor have produced a copy of the declaration issued under section 28(4) of the Act. 9. Objection is well taken. However, to make amends, Sri. Vardhaman V Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a memo before the court seeking for additional prayer in the writ petition for quashing the declaration issued under section 28 (4) of the Act, copy of which is available before this court as Annexure-R2 to the statement of objections filed by the Board and therefore the need for producing a separate copy of the very same notification, by the petitioners is avoided. 10. The final declaration bearing No. CI 335 SPQ 2009, BANGALORE, dated 16.10.2009 issued under section 28(4) of the Act by the State Government insofar as it relates to the property of the petitioners are concerned, stands quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, but liberty given to the State Government to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law if it is so needed or warranted. 11. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute to the extent indicated above. 12. Submission of the learned Advocate General that the examination of the manner of functioning of the Board, for which purpose, learned Advocate General has been requested to assist the court and to act as Amicus Curiae, can be retained in other petitions involving challenges to the acquisition proceedings by the State Government and the Board and such aspect may be examined in writ petition Nos. 24120-24124 of 2010 coming up before this court on 6.1.2011, is recorded. 13. Respondent – Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited to place before the court the information and the full data called for by this court relating to their project and a comprehensive sketch of all the metro tracks proposed for construction, before this court in writ petition Nos. 24120-24124 of 2010 which is coming up before this court on 6.1.2011. 14. Registry is directed to place copy of this order in the file of the writ petition Nos. 24120-24124 of 2010.