Judgment 1. These petitioners are filed raising the challenge to the preliminary notification, dated 07.08.2006 and the final notification, dated 20.08.2008 issued under Section 28(1) and 28(4) respectively of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“the K.I.A.D. Act” for short). 2. The preliminary notification is in respect of 1032 acres 20 guntas spread over five villages of Ganapathihalli, Punagamaranahalli, Karigiripura Village, Ajjanahalli, Doddamaranahalli situated in Bangalore South Taluk. Out of these lands, 259 acres 29 guntas in Doddamaranahalli are left out of the acquisition on the ground that there is a lot of opposition from the people of the said village. The final notification was issued covering 746 acres 25 guntas. Out of the said 746 acres 25 guntas, 6 acres 23 guntas thought included in the final notification, are excluded from the industrial area by the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the K.I.A.D. Act on 22.01.2010. The same is for three reasons: (a) It is adjoining the Gramatana (b) There is an independent road to the said land (c) An industrial shed is already constructed thereon. 3. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri B. Keshava Murthy, for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.40336-40337/2011 submits that the lands in question are situated in the residential zone. Without examining the desirability of acquiring the residential lands for the industrial development, the impugned notifications are issued. He complains of the non-application of mind. He submits that the Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation (‘K.S.S.I.D.C.’ for short) first indicated its requirement for 1000 acres but subsequently went on varying its requirements downwards. He submits that the respondents are not justified in acquiring the large chunks of lands without auditing the land requirements. 4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that till now nobody has deposited any substantial portion of the probable compensation amount. The respondents are not justified in resorting to reckless acquisition and thereafter trying to identify the beneficiaries. He submits that such things amount to the colourable exercise of power. The land cannot be acquired for speculative purpose. 5. He also brings to my notice that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘K.I.A.D.B.’ for short), which is the nodal agency for allotting the industrial plots, itself has passed the resolution that the lands are not required for the industrial development. The land cannot be acquired for speculative purpose. 5. He also brings to my notice that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘K.I.A.D.B.’ for short), which is the nodal agency for allotting the industrial plots, itself has passed the resolution that the lands are not required for the industrial development. He submits that through the preliminary notification is issued six years ago and the final notification four years ago, the respondents have not chosen to pass the award. 6. Sri B.K. Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.36867-876/2010 submits that the K.I.A.D.B., in its 305th Board meeting held on 02.02.2011, has resolved that the notification under Section 4 of the K.I.A.D. Act be issued excluding the lands in question from the industrial areas. He submits that K.I.A.D.B. has even sent the draft exclusion notification to the Government, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-P. 7. Sri K.M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that once the final notification under Section 28(4) of the K.I.A.D. Act is issued, the lands come to be vested in the Government by the operation of law. He brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 28(4) and (5) of the K.I.A.D. Act, which are extracted herein below: “28. Acquisition of land: …………………………………. (4) After orders are passed under sub-section (3), where the State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), a declaration shall, by notification in the official Gazette, be made to that effect. (5) On the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.” 8. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dealing with the withdrawal of the land from the acquisition proceedings has no application for the acquisition made under K.I.A.D. Act; only those provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which deal with the enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, reference to the Court, apportionment of the compensation and the payment of compensation are applicable to the acquisition proceedings under the K.I.A.D. Act. He relies on the Apex Court’s judgment, dated 02.02.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.1215/2011 in the case of M. NAGABHUSHANA vs. STATE OF KARANATAKA AND OTHERS in support of his submission that K.I.A.D Act is a self contained code. 9. Sri B.R. Srinivasa Gowda, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent K.I.A.D.B. and its Special Land Acquisition Officer submits that the K.I.A.D.B. has already recommended to the Government for the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the K.I.A.D. Act. He submits that the acquisition proceedings are concluded in accordance with law and that there are no procedural irregularities whatsoever. 10. Sri K. Krishna, the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed the original records for my perusal. 11. On hearing the learned advocates, the following questions fall for my consideration:- (i) Whether the formation of opinion of the State Government has preceded the issuance of the preliminary notification as per Section 28(1) of the K.I.A.D. Act? (ii) Whether the Government has erred in applying different standards for withdrawal from acquisition? (iii) Whether the requirement of the lands in question for the industrial development is persisting? 12. In re. Question No.1:- The State Government may initiate the acquisition proceedings, but only after forming the opinion that the land is required for the purpose of development by K.I.A.D.B or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of K.I.A.D. Act. This requirement is contained in Section 28(1) of the K.I.A.D Act, the provisions of which are extracted herein below: “28. Acquisition of land: (1) If any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land.” 13. The Legislature, in exercise of its wisdom, has prescribed the pre-requirement of the formation of opinion for notifying its intention to acquire the lands. The rationale behind such a prescription is that the land is not to be acquired mindlessly, casually or recklessly. In the case of GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DEVENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 375, the Apex Court has this to say in paragraph 49 of its judgment: “49. The rationale behind such a prescription is that the land is not to be acquired mindlessly, casually or recklessly. In the case of GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DEVENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 375, the Apex Court has this to say in paragraph 49 of its judgment: “49. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to reiterate that the acquisition of land is a serious matter and before initiating the proceedings under the 1894 Act and other similar legislation, the Government concerned must seriously ponder over the consequences of depriving the tenure-holder of his property. It must be remembered that the land is just like mother of the people living in the rural areas of the country. It is the only source of sustenance and livelihood for the landowner and his family. If the land is acquired, not only the present but the future generations of the landowner are deprived of their livelihood and the only social security. They are made landless and are forced to live in slums in the urban areas because there is no mechanism for ensuring alternative source of livelihood to them. Mindless acquisition of fertile and cultivable land may also lead to serious food crisis in the country.” 14. Now let me examine whether the State Government has formed its opinion. The formation of opinion itself is a very serious exercise. The State Government has to clearly and consciously assess the extent of the land required for the industrial development. The acquisition of the lands, even if required for the industrial development, cannot be excessive or lavish. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the acquisition of the lands is initiated based on the resolution of the K.I.A.D.B. passed in 274th meeting held on 1.7.2006 for the acquisition of the lands for the purpose of K.S.S.I.D.C. The K.S.S.I.D.C. has sent its requisition for 1000 acres of land vide its letter, dated 27.4.2006. Its contents are extracted hereinbelow:- “KANNADAM” 15. Based on the afore-indicated requirement, the K.I.A.D.B. has passed the resolution on 1.7.2006. It reads as follows:- “KANNADAM” 16. Thus, when K.I.A.D.B.’s resolution is for the acquisition of 1000 acres, the proceedings are initiated for acquiring 1032 acres 20 guntas. There is no basis or foundation for acquiring the extra or excessive extent of the land measuring 32 acres and 20 guntas. It reads as follows:- “KANNADAM” 16. Thus, when K.I.A.D.B.’s resolution is for the acquisition of 1000 acres, the proceedings are initiated for acquiring 1032 acres 20 guntas. There is no basis or foundation for acquiring the extra or excessive extent of the land measuring 32 acres and 20 guntas. The Government is not justified in notifying more lands for acquisition than what are actually required by the beneficiary. 17. While acquiring the large chunks of lands, it may not be possible to work out the requirement with the exactitude or arithmetical precession. One can understand one or two guntas of land being notified in excess of the requisition, but certainly not 32 acres 20 guntas. 18. The records also do not disclose the due application of mind. The land-requirements are not audited. There is no judicious or thoughtful determination of the extent of the land required for the industrial development. These factors go to expose the non-application of mind by the authorities while issuing the impugned preliminary notification; it appears they were not even sure of the extent of the land required for the purpose of the K.S.S.I.D.C. The application of mind has to be regarding the purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired, the extent of the land required, the suitability of the land for the industrial development and the identifiable beneficiaries thereof. In the absence of the details, nobody can comprehend as to why and for whose benefit the land is being acquired. The preliminary notification states that the lands are required for the purpose of bringing about the industrial development by the K.S.S.I.D.C. But the K.I.A.D.B’s letter, dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure-M) reveals that the Bangalore North Small Scale Industries Association and the Peenya Industrial Association also sought 140 and 600 acres respectively. The purpose, the extent and the intended beneficiaries appear to be amorphous. The acquisition of the property of the citizens in such a casual manner vitiates the impugned notifications. In taking this view, I am fortified by the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD vs. MOHD. SHAFI AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 . I am constrained to hold that the formation of the opinion has not preceded the issuance of the preliminary notification. The question No.1 is answered accordingly. 19. In re. SHAFI AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 . I am constrained to hold that the formation of the opinion has not preceded the issuance of the preliminary notification. The question No.1 is answered accordingly. 19. In re. Question No.2:- Any discrimination in the matter of dropping the lands from the acquisition proceedings offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The similarly placed land owners cannot be treated dissimilarly. The K.I.A.D.B.’s letter, dated 4.11.2010 (Annexure-J) states that out of 1032 acres 20 guntas, the land measuring 259 acres 29 guntas situated at Doddamarenahalli are left out of the final notification because of the opposition of the owners of the lands in Doddamarenahalli. 20. The said letter states that out of 259 acres 29 guntas, some lands are adjoining the boundaries of the villages and are in the vicinity of the tank and that some are in the tankbund areas. It is not known why the respondents have not examined as to whether the similar features are existing in respect of the other lands, which are not left out of the acquisition proceedings. 21. There is no cessation of the matter at it. Not only that 259 acres 29 guntas of lands are not included in the final notification, but some lands, which were included in the final notification, are withdrawn from the acquisition. The lands measuring 6 acres 23 guntas standing at Sy.No.13/2 of Ajjanahalli village, though included in the final notification, are dropped from the acquisition, as disclosed by the said letter, dated 4.11.2010. The reasons stated for dropping the acquisition proceedings are that – (i) an industrial shed in constructed thereon (ii) the lands about Gramatana and (iii) there is an independent access to the said lands. 22. It is incumbent on the respondents to examine whether the lands in question are similar to the lands taken out of the acquisition (either by excluding them in the final notification and/or by issuing the notification under Section 4 of the KIAD Act or by withdrawing the land from acquisition proceedings in exercise of the power conferred by Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 23. When the owners of the lands situated in the adjoining village have also put up the resistance, their lands are also required to be left out of the acquisition proceedings. 23. When the owners of the lands situated in the adjoining village have also put up the resistance, their lands are also required to be left out of the acquisition proceedings. The guidelines/yardsticks/norms evolved for the withdrawal of the lands from the acquisition are to be applied on an uniform basis. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of HARI RAM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 3 SCC 621 . The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted hereinbelow: “40. It is true that any action or order contrary to law does not confer any rights upon any person for similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose by following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition but where the State Government exercises its power under Section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners who are similarly situated have a right of similar treatment by the State Government. Equality of citizens ‘rights is one of the fundamental pillars on which the edifice of rule of law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons. 41. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same acquisition proceedings. The State Government cannot pick and choose some landowners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by creating artificial distinction. Passing different order in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition proceedings and for the same public purpose is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be discriminatory. 43. It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering representations of the appellants by applying the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the same acquisition proceedings. 43. It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering representations of the appellants by applying the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the same acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State Government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious. The action of the State Government in treating the present appellants differently although they are situated similar to the landowners whose lands have been released can not be countenanced and has to be declared bad in law.” 24. As the yardsticks followed in excluding 259 acres 29 guntas in Doddamarenahalli from the final notification and in withdrawing 6 creas 23 guntas standing at Ajjanahalli Village from the acquisition are not applied in respect of the lands in question, I cannot but answer the second question by holding that the Government has erred in the matter. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram (supra), the Government cannot pick and choose some land owners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to the other land owners. 25. In re. Question No.3:- Having indicated its requirements as 1000 acres, the K.S.S.I.D.C has now scaled down its requirement only to 200 acres (approximately 1/5th of its original requisition) vide its letter, dated 18.2.2010. Subsequently, it appears to have settled down its requirement to only 100 acres (1/10th of its original requisition). These factors only indicate that the K.S.S.I.D.C. is unsure of its exact land-requirement. 26. The K.I.A.D.B.’s letter, dated 29.7.2011 states that the Advisory Committee has recommended the determination of compensation at the rate of Rs.40.00 lakh per acre. The land owners have not accepted the same. But, the K.S.S.I.D.C. has withdrawn the deposit of Rs.30.72 crore stating that the recommendation for fixing the land value at Rs.40.00 lakh per acre is on the higher side. All these developments go to show that the K.S.S.I.D.C is not serious on taking the lands in question. 27. The land owners have not accepted the same. But, the K.S.S.I.D.C. has withdrawn the deposit of Rs.30.72 crore stating that the recommendation for fixing the land value at Rs.40.00 lakh per acre is on the higher side. All these developments go to show that the K.S.S.I.D.C is not serious on taking the lands in question. 27. The said letter states that Bangalore North Small Scale Industrialists Association wants 140 acres of land and Peenya Industrialists Association wants 600 acres, but when the said Associations were called upon to deposit the amount, they have not complied with the said demand. They have not evinced any interest in the matter. 28. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the K.I.A.D.B. in its 305th Board meeting held on 2.2.2011, has recommended to the Government to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of 746 acres 25 guntas of lands. Consequently, the K.I.A.D.B. has also sent a draft notification (Annexure-P in W.P.No.36867-876/2011) for the deletion of the lands from the acquisition and for excluding the lands in question from the industrial area. 29. Thus, when K.S.S.I.D.C., Bangalore North Small Scale Industrialists Association and Peenya Industrialists Association are not ready to deposit the amount and when the acquisition body, namely K.I.A.D.B. has passed the resolution for dropping the lands from the acquisition proceedings and has even sent the draft notification to the Government, I have no hesitation in holding that the need for the lands in question is not persisting any longer. The proposed beneficiaries may be finding the acquisition unviable cost-wise. It is also pertinent to note that neither the K.S.S.I.D.C. nor the said Associations have raised any challenge to the K.I.A.D.B’s resolution, dated 02.02.2011. When the beneficiaries have no qualms over the said resolution recommending the deletion of the lands from acquisition, no useful purpose would be served by the respondent’s clinging on to the acquisition. The third question is therefore answered in the negative. 30. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned notification in so far as they pertain to the petitioners’ lands. It is made clear that if a fresh need arises for the lands for the industrial development, it is always open to the Government to initiate the acquisition proceedings afresh. 31. These petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.