JUDGMENT 1. Although the matter is listed for hearing on I.A., it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates. 2. The petitioners have called into question the final notification, dated 31.7.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD’ Act for short) insofar as they pertain to the petitioners’ lands. The lands in question along with the other lands totally measuring 1057 acres are being compulsorily acquired for the purpose of industrial development. 3. Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for Sri Girish Baladare for the petitioners submits that many of the petitioners are not even put on individual notices on the issuance of the preliminary notification. That is why and how some of the petitioners are denied of the opportunity to file the objections. Some of the petitioners, who have filed the objections, are not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. Without considering their objections and hearing them, the order under Section 28(3) and consequently the notification under Section 28(4) are issued. He brings to my notice that this Court, by its order, dated 13.2.2012 (Annexure-R) in Writ Petition Nos.37251-276/2011 has already quashed the final notification insofar as it pertains to the land-owners in Writ Petition Nos.37251-276/2011. 4. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State Government brings to my notice the averments contained in paragraph No.9 of the memorandum of the writ petition. It reads as follows:- “9. The petitioners filed objections to the proposed acquisition. A few of the objections filed by the petitioner are produced herewith and marked Annexure-K. The petitioners were however not given any personal hearing in that matter, and without hearing all the petitioners and considered the objections filed by the some of the petitioners the notices are issued under the Act for acquisition.” Thus, as the petitioners themselves have admitted that they have received the notice and filed objections, their only surviving grievance could be that they are not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. 5. Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) in WP Nos.24322-24340/2012 C/W 23337-23357/2012, 29340-29391/2012 and 23332-23336/2012 submits that the issues raised in these petitions are fairly covered by this Court’s order, dated 13.2.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.37251-276/2011. 5. Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) in WP Nos.24322-24340/2012 C/W 23337-23357/2012, 29340-29391/2012 and 23332-23336/2012 submits that the issues raised in these petitions are fairly covered by this Court’s order, dated 13.2.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.37251-276/2011. He submits that the interested persons are notified of the acquisition proceedings and are given the opportunity to file their objections and that they were heard on 7.5.2007 and 8.5.2007. As the acquisition proceedings do not suffer from any infirmity, he prays for the dismissal of these petitions. 6. Sri Ashok N. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No.4299/2012 and 6903-6906/2012 and 6907-6911/2012 submits that the objections filed by the petitioners are considered. Some of the land-owners have already given their consent to the acquisition of the lands. They only want higher compensation. 7. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Sadasiva Reddy denies that any of the petitioners has given the consent to the acquisition of the lands. He submits that the records reveal that the acquisition of the lands in question is for the establishment of Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T.). As the I.I.T. has not evinced any interest and as it has not deposited the amounts towards the compensation, the very purpose of acquisition has spent itself. In this regard, he read out the extract of the proceedings of the meeting of KIADB held on 1.2.2008. EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS ADDL.SUB.NO.5 File No.1862 285th Meeting dated 1.2.2008 “LANGUAGE” 8. On the petitioner’s argument that the purpose for which the acquisition proceedings are initiated has spent itself out, I do not propose to express any opinion, but only to quote what the Apex Court has said in the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 792 . “41. On the petitioner’s argument that the purpose for which the acquisition proceedings are initiated has spent itself out, I do not propose to express any opinion, but only to quote what the Apex Court has said in the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 792 . “41. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to observe that in recent past, various State Governments and their functionaries have adopted very casual approach in dealing with matters relating to the acquisition of land in general and the rural areas in particular and in a large number of cases, the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) with or without the aid of Section 17 and the consequential actions have been nullified by the courts on the ground of violation of the mandatory procedure and the rules of natural justice.” “42. It is difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate as to why the State and its instrumentalities resort to massive acquisition of land and that too without complying with the mandate of the statute. As noted by the National Commission of Farmers, the acquisition of agricultural land in the name of planned development or industrial growth would seriously affect the availability of food in future. After independence, the administrative apparatus of the State has not spent enough investment in the rural areas and those who have been doing agriculture have not been educated and empowered to adopt alternative sources of livelihood. If land of such persons is acquired, not only the current but the future generations are ruined and this is one of the reasons why the farmers who are deprived of their holdings commit suicide.” 43. It also appears that the authorities concerned are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit, etc. They do not realise that having one’s own house is a lifetime dream of a majority of the population of this country. Therefore, before acquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes. If the acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the authorities concerned must strictly comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice. 9. Therefore, before acquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes. If the acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the authorities concerned must strictly comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice. 9. The three questions that arise for my examination are:- "(1) Whether the petitioners’ objections are considered? (2) Whether the hearing exercise is satisfactory? (3) Whether the final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is liable to be quashed?" 10. To answer the question Nos. (1) and (2), it is necessary to advert to the provisions contained in Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, which are as follows:- “28. Acquisition of land.- (3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.” 11. My perusal of Section 28(3) order shows that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has just referred to the objections filed by the petitioners, but he has not considered them at all. The reasons given by him for rejecting the objections are (a) the acquisition is with the best intention and (b) the acquisition is in public interest. 12. The word ‘consideration’ is vividly explained by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of The Barium Chemicals Ltd. & another vs. A.J. Rana & Others reported in AIR 1972 SC 591 . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “15. The words ‘considers it necessary’ postulate that the authority concerned has thought over the matter deliberately and with care and it has been found necessary as a result of such thinking to pass the order. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘consider’ is ‘to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, bethink oneself, to reflect’ (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to Words and Phrases – Permanent Edn: Vol.8-A to ‘consider’ means to think with care. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘consider’ is ‘to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, bethink oneself, to reflect’ (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to Words and Phrases – Permanent Edn: Vol.8-A to ‘consider’ means to think with care. It is also mentioned that ‘to consider’ is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question in sine qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents specified in the order. The essential requisite to the making of the order would be held to be non-existent.” 13. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra), the Collector is required to consider the land-owners plea against the acquisition of land. It has this to say in paragraph No.40 of its judgment:- “40. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons.” 14. It is also profitable to refer to the Honb’le Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kamal Trading Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 25, wherein it is held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are required to be strictly construed, as it is an ex-proprietary legislation. It is also profitable to refer to the Honb’le Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kamal Trading Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 25, wherein it is held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are required to be strictly construed, as it is an ex-proprietary legislation. Emphasizing the cardinal importance of the right/protection given under Section 5-A of the said Act, it has this to say in paragraph Nos.15 and 28 of its judgment:- “15. Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collector’s recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections. It is pertinent to note that declaration under Section 6 has to be made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). As said by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., the appropriate Government while issuing declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also to the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making such further inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary and also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. 28. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the Second Land Acquisition Officer had applied his mind to the objections raised by the appellant. The abovequoted paragraphs are bereft of any recommendations. The Second Land Acquisition Officer has only reproduced the contentions of the officers of the acquiring body. The objections taken by the appellants are rejected on a very vague ground. Mere use of the words “for the greater interest of public” does not lend the report the character of a report made after application of mind. The Second Land Acquisition Officer has only reproduced the contentions of the officers of the acquiring body. The objections taken by the appellants are rejected on a very vague ground. Mere use of the words “for the greater interest of public” does not lend the report the character of a report made after application of mind. Though in our opinion, the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act must be set aside because the appellant was not given hearing as contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the LA Act, which is the appellant’s substantive right, we must record that in the facts of this case, we are totally dissatisfied with the report submitted by the Second Land Acquisition Officer. His report is utterly laconic and bereft of any recommendations. He was not expected to write a detailed report but, his report, however brief, should have reflected application of mind. Needless to say that as to which report made under Section 5-A(2) could be said to be a report disclosing application of mind will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The rejection of the petitioners’ objections for the reasons that the acquisition is in public interest or that it is done with the best intention or that the petitioners would be given adequate compensation does not amount to consideration of their objections. Mechanical and stereotype reasons cannot be regarded as adequate. The recording of reasons ensures that the SLAO applies his mind to the case and the reasons that impelled him to take the decision in question. The first question is answered accordingly. 16. As far as the exercise of hearing is concerned, it is not in dispute that all the objectors were heard on 7.5.2007 and 8.5.2007. It is humanly not possible to hear hundreds of objectors in two days’ time. Even a professional judge may find it difficult to complete the hearing exercise in respect of hundreds of objectors in two days. Section 28(3) of KIAD Act embodies a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is intended to be acquired, should have the occasion to persuade the concerned authorities not to acquire his property. Affording of opportunity of being heard is with a definite purpose and it cannot be reduced to an empty formality. 17. Section 28(3) of KIAD Act embodies a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is intended to be acquired, should have the occasion to persuade the concerned authorities not to acquire his property. Affording of opportunity of being heard is with a definite purpose and it cannot be reduced to an empty formality. 17. It is not necessary for the SLAO to write out a judgment as a court of law does. However, he must at least state what arguments are canvassed and for what reasons he is rejecting them. Hearing hundreds of objectors in two days’ time and not considering what was raised in the course of hearing renders the whole exercise undependable and unreliable. I therefore hold that the hearing exercise is not at all satisfactory. 18. At the very outset of the answer to the third question, what can be said is that the well-reasoned order under Section 28(3) of KIAD Act would be a raw-material for the Government to take a final call on the issuance of the final notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act. When Section 28(3) order itself is deficient, Section 28(4) notification becomes unsustainable. This is all the more so when nothing is placed on the record to show that the Government has applied its mind afresh to the objections of the petitioners and the report of the SLAO. 19. As held in the case of Kamal Trading (supra), the final declaration has to be made only after the Government is satisfied on the consideration of Section 5-A report. It is reiterated in the said decision that the Government, while issuing the final notification, is required to apply its mind not only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also to the report which is submitted by the Collector (SLAO in the instant case) and also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. Mere mechanical acceptance or endorsement of the SLAO’s order by the Government does not meet the requirements of law. 20. In taking this view, I am fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Surinder Singh Brar & others vs. Union of India & others, reported in 2013(1) SCC 403 . The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “84. 20. In taking this view, I am fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Surinder Singh Brar & others vs. Union of India & others, reported in 2013(1) SCC 403 . The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “84. What needs to be emphasised is that hearing required to be given under Section 5-A(2) to a person who is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed objections under Section 5-A(1) must be effective and not an empty formality. The Collector who is enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors has the freedom of making further enquiry as he may think necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections and submit the same to the appropriate Government along with the record of proceedings held by him for the latter’s decision. The appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report, if any, made under Section 5-A(2) and then record its satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public purpose. This exercise culminates into making a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration is to be signed by a Secretary to the Government or some other officer duly authorised to certify its orders. The formation of opinion on the issue of need of land for a public purpose and suitability thereof is sine qua non for issue of a declaration under Section 6 (1). Any violation of the substantive right of the landowners and/or other interested persons to file objections or denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the objector(s) vitiates the recommendations made by the Collector and the decision taken by the appropriate Government on such recommendations. The recommendations made by the Collector without duly considering the objections filed under Section 5-A(1) and submissions made at the hearing given under Section 5-A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government to take objective decision on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector will denude the decision of the appropriate Government of statutory finality. The recommendations made by the Collector without duly considering the objections filed under Section 5-A(1) and submissions made at the hearing given under Section 5-A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government to take objective decision on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector will denude the decision of the appropriate Government of statutory finality. To put it differently, the satisfaction recorded by the appropriate Government that the particular land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration made under Section 6(1) will be devoid of legal sanctity if statutorily engrafted procedural safeguards are not adhered to by the authorities concerned or there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The cases before us are illustrative of flagrant violation of the mandate of Sections 5-A(2) and 6(1). Therefore, the second question is answered in the affirmative.” 87. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5-A read with Section 6(1), the Court cannot, after the issue of declaration under Section 6(1), nullify the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by consideration of the report prepared by the Collector after considering the objections filed under Section 5-A and hearing the objectors. This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government which must be clearly reflected in the record.” 21. As Section 28(3) order is not a reasoned order and in the absence of the application of mind on the part of the Government to the objections filed by the petitioners, the consequential Section 28(4) final notification becomes unsupportable. Therefore the third question is answered in the affirmative by holding that the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is liable to be quashed. 22. Therefore the third question is answered in the affirmative by holding that the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is liable to be quashed. 22. In the result, I allow these petitions by quashing Section 28(3) order and 28(4) final notification insofar as they pertain to the petitioners’ lands. It is made clear that the preliminary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act is kept intact. The proceedings are required to be resumed from Section 28(3) stage. The petitioners shall appear before the SLAO on 29.7.2013 without waiting for any notice from the SLAO. The SLAO is directed to expedite Section 28(3) enquiry. The consideration of the objections and the hearing exercise shall be in the letter and spirit of the decisions to which the elaborate references are made hereinabove. The issuance of final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act would depend upon the outcome of Section 28(3) proceedings. 23. I.A.No.1/13 for dispensing with the production of the preliminary notification in all the petitions are allowed. 24. I.A.2/13 for amendment in W.P.NOS.24322-24340/2012, 29340-29391/2012, 23332-23336/2012, 4299/2012 and 6903-6906/2012 and 6907-6911/2012 are filed for the purpose of incorporating the prayer for quashing the preliminary notification. As I am keeping the preliminary notification intact with a direction to the SLAO to consider the petitioners’ objections and hear them thereon, I.A.No.2/13 in the said petitions are dismissed as having become unnecessary. 25. I.A.No.2/13 in W.P.23337–23357/2012 for amendment is allowed in part permitting the petitioners to rectify the mistakes in the showing of the survey number. In Section 28(3) proceedings, the beneficiary KIADB shall have the opportunity to dispute that the said petitioners are not the owners of the lands at the survey numbers in question. 26. I.A.3/13 in all the petitions for the production of additional documents is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to produce the same before the SLAO. The liberty is also reserved to the beneficiary to dispute their authenticity and relevance. 27. The parties are left to bear their own costs.