ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are seeking to quash the declaration/notification dated 27.02.2023 issued by the second respondent under Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short). 2. The petitioners are owners and cultivators of small extent of agriculture and residential land situated at Konagatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, and their lands form part of the acquisition initiated by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) under the Preliminary Notification dated 07.02.2022 issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. 3. In W.P No. 4285 of 2024, the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No. 65/2B, measuring 1 acre 23 guntas comprising of extensive grape plantation, horticulture trees, bore well and pump houses, the said land being the sole source of his livelihood. They state that detailed objections under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act were filed, but the authorities mechanically rejected them through an order dated 20.01.2023 under Section 28(3) and thereafter issued Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 under Section 28 (4). 4. In W.P. 18546 of 2025 the petitioner claims to be the owner of 0.24 guntas in Survey No. 67/ 4 (phoded from Survey No. 67/1) where he has constructed a dwelling cattle shed and farm storage house on 0.08 guntas, and is cultivating vegetables and ragi on the remaining 0.16 guntas. The land also contains ancestral burial remains of the petitioner's family. It is stated that though objections were filed on 29.04.2022, the respondents acquired 0.16 guntas leaving only 0.08 guntas through Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 despite multiple letter/representations requesting deletion of the land. 5. In WP No. 34227 of 2024, the petitioner claims to be the owner of Survey No. 67/1 measuring 19 guntas, which is also a joint family property containing a residential house where the petitioner and his family reside. The petitioner asserts that no notice under Section 28(2) was issued to him and no opportunity to file objections was provided. Notwithstanding the absence of notice or a Section 28(3) order, the authorities proceeded to issue Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 and issued a notice under Section 28(6) calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the residential house. The petitioner further asserts that no compensation has been paid nor any agreement under Section 29 has been entered. 6. Notwithstanding the absence of notice or a Section 28(3) order, the authorities proceeded to issue Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 and issued a notice under Section 28(6) calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the residential house. The petitioner further asserts that no compensation has been paid nor any agreement under Section 29 has been entered. 6. The respondents 3 and 4 in their statement of objections filed in W.P. 18546 of 2025 as well as W.P. 34227 of 2024 have contended that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable, asserting that the acquisition has been taken place strictly in accordance with Sections 28 (1) to 28(8) of the KIAD Act, pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 07.02.2022 and the Final Notification dated 27.02.2023, by which the lands vest absolutely in the State under Section 28 (5). It is contended that the individual notices under Section 28(2) were duly served and the petitioners objections were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before passing the order dated 20.01.2023 under Section 28(3) recommending acquisition. The respondents further state that the land in Survey Nos. 67/4 and 67/1 are situated in the midst of the notified industrial area and are essential for maintaining contiguity of the layout. Hence, they cannot be deleted. Further, the Government Circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013, relied upon by the petitioners, are mere internal guidelines without statutory force and only applicable if deletion does not disturb contiguity, which according to the respondents would be affected in these cases. It is also contended that the existence of a dwelling house, farm structures, or agricultural livelihood does not bar acquisition and that the petitioners are entitled only to compensation in accordance with law. It is denied that there was any violation of natural justice, arbitrariness or non-consideration of the objections and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 7. The grievance of all the petitioners is that the respondents have failed to consider the nature of the crops which comprise plantation lands, residential house, farm structures and graveyards, all of which fall within the prohibited category of plants under the Government's Circular dated 18.03.2013, which directs KIADB not to acquire plantation lands, residential houses, graveyards, fertile agricultural lands and lands growing two crops annually. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that though several similarly situated landowners in the same acquisition block have obtained interim protection or quashing of acquisition, the petitioners herein have been subjected to arbitrary and discriminatory acquisition, thereby violating Articles 14, 21, 300A of the Constitution of India. Further that the acquisition proceedings were undertaken in a complete disregard of statutory requirements under Sections 28 (2), 28(3) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act without proper service of notice, without meaningful consideration of objections, and contrary to the binding Government direction, resulting in deprivation of their only dwelling house and livelihood lands. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents - KIDAB contend that the acquisition has been completed strictly in accordance with the KIAD Act pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 07.02.2022 under Section 28 (1) followed by the Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 under Section 28 (4). It is submitted that once Final Notification is issued, the land stands vested absolutely in the State under Section 28(5) and therefore the petitioners cannot seek for quashing of the acquisition. It is contended that the objections of the petitioners were duly considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before passing a reasoned order dated 20.01.2023 under Section 28(3). According to the respondents, the order overruling objections was passed after considering the merits and therefore challenge to Section 28(3) and 28(4) notifications is unsustainable. 9. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, “whether the declaration/notification issued on 27.02.2023 is after considering under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act? 11. Under Sections 28(2) and 28(3) of the KIAD Act, the issuance of a notice inviting objections and consideration of such objections by a reasoned order are mandatory statutory requirements. These provisions embody the principles of natural justice, requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to apply his mind to the material placed by the land owner before recommending acquisition of the land. Under Sections 28(2) and 28(3) of the KIAD Act, the issuance of a notice inviting objections and consideration of such objections by a reasoned order are mandatory statutory requirements. These provisions embody the principles of natural justice, requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to apply his mind to the material placed by the land owner before recommending acquisition of the land. The petitioner in WP 18546 of 2025 contends that he filed detailed objections on 29.04.2022 opposing the proposed acquisition of Survey No. 67/4 measuring 0.24 guntas, wherein he had constructed a dwelling house, cattle shed and a farm storage house over 0.08 guntas and cultivating vegetable and green vegetables in the remaining 0.16 guntas which constituted his sole source of livelihood. Notwithstanding the said objections, the Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 reveals that the respondents have left only 0.08 guntas and proceeded to acquire 0.16 guntas of land in Survey No. 67/4. The petitioner had no objections to the acquisition of his other lands i.e. Survey No. 62/2, (36 guntas), Survey No. 83/6 (24 guntas) and Survey No. 83/8 (37 guntas) yet his grievance pertaining to Survey No. 67/4 was not dealt with in the manner mandated under Section 28(2) and 28(3) of the KIAD Act. 12. In WP 4285 of 2024 the petitioner had filed objections on 27.04.2022 opposing acquisition of Survey No. 65/ 2B measuring 1 acre 19 guntas plus 4 guntas kharab total (1 acre 23 guntas) specifically on the ground that the land consisted of extensive grape plantation, horticulture crops, bore well and pump houses and was being used exclusively for agriculture and horticulture purposes. The petitioner asserts that during inspection the SLAO had indicated that the land would be dropped from acquisition. However, the Final Notification dated 27.02.2023, nonetheless included the entire land for industrial purpose without reflecting any consideration of his objections. 13. In WP 34227 of 2024, the petitioner contends that no individual notice under Section 28(2) was issued or was ever served upon him, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to file objections. He became aware of the acquisition only upon issuance of a Final Notification and possession notice under Section 28(6). It is his specific case that the acquired land contains a farmhouse and a dwelling house and is used for agriculture and horticulture purposes, which, under the Government Circular dated 18.03.2013 ought not to have been included in the acquisition. He became aware of the acquisition only upon issuance of a Final Notification and possession notice under Section 28(6). It is his specific case that the acquired land contains a farmhouse and a dwelling house and is used for agriculture and horticulture purposes, which, under the Government Circular dated 18.03.2013 ought not to have been included in the acquisition. However, this aspect also did not find any reflection in the impugned proceedings. 14. The respondents assertion that the notices under Section 28 (2) were duly served and the objections were properly considered under Section 28 (3) is not borne out from the record. The impugned order dated 20.01.2023 does not disclose any discussion of the specific objections raised by the petitioners regarding the existence of dwelling house, farm structures and livelihood cultivation, nor does it reflect consideration of the binding Government Circulars dated 18.03.2013. The plea of contiguity is stated in a bald manner without any supporting lay-out material or material demonstrating how deletion of the petitioners small extent would affect the industrial area. Respondents reliance on vesting under Section 28(5) is misplaced because vesting cannot cure the foundational defects in the statutory process under Sections 28 (2) and 28(3). 15. In H.M Venkataswamy vs State of Karnataka and Others , WP 15514 of 2008 D.D 21.06.2012 (H.M.Venkataswamy), this Court has categorically held that the scope and ambit of enquiry contemplated under Sections 28(2) and 28(3 )of the KIAD Act is similar and akin to the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and therefore the authorities are mandated to award a meaningful opportunity of hearing and properly consider the objections filed by the land owner before recommending an acquisition. In H.M. Venkataswamy (supra) , this Court held as under : “It is clear that the petitioner has filed objections to the notice issued under Section 28(2) of the Act opposing the acquisition of the land in question. He has raised several grounds in his objections opposing the acquisition. The order at Annexure-G dated 26.11.2007 (item No.32) passed under Section 28 (3) of the Act by the 3 rd respondent would clearly indicate that the 3 rd respondent has not considered the objections except stating that the land is situated at the center of the proposed layout. He has raised several grounds in his objections opposing the acquisition. The order at Annexure-G dated 26.11.2007 (item No.32) passed under Section 28 (3) of the Act by the 3 rd respondent would clearly indicate that the 3 rd respondent has not considered the objections except stating that the land is situated at the center of the proposed layout. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a sketch, which shows that the land is situated at the corner of the proposed layout. It is clear that the 3 rd respondent has not applied his mind while passing the order. 6. In THE BARIUM CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. A.J.RANA AND OTHERS – AIR 1972 SC 591 , the Apex Court was considering the meaning of the word ‘consider’. It has been held thus: “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 thing with care. It is also mentioned that to 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 mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question in since 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.” 7. This Court in the case of D.HEMACHANDRA SAGAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS – 1999 (1) KLJ 510 was considering the case relating to consideration of objections by the Bangalore Development Authority under Section17 (5) of the Act. This Court in the case of D.HEMACHANDRA SAGAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS – 1999 (1) KLJ 510 was considering the case relating to consideration of objections by the Bangalore Development Authority under Section17 (5) of the Act. It has been held as under:- “A statutory Authority like BDA evolves its own procedure to consider the representations filed by the owners in respect of the proposed acquisition. There is no hard and fast rule that the Authority itself should consider each of the representations before making appropriate orders. However, it is settled that the consideration of the representation by any Authority should be in the manner recognised by law. 'Consideration of representation' postulates that the Authority concerned has thought over the matter by applying its mind to the relevant portion of the representations and may make its recommendation assigning reasons for such recommendation. Mere extracting the nature of objections and his remarks without assigning reasons is no consideration at all.” 8. The Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., Vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND OTHERS – 2005 (7) SCC 627 , was considering the scope of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It has been held as under:- “The Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation. In such a case the provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefore must be paid.” It has been further held as under:- “The conclusiveness contained in Section 6 of the Act indisputably is attached to a need as also the purpose and in this regard ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the court is limited but it is equally true that when an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when the decision making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well- known principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner.” 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the order passed under Section 28 (3) of the Act and the final notification issued under Section 28 (4) of the Act at Annexure – C insofar as the petition schedule property is concerned requires to be quashed.” 16. It is clear that the petitioners had filed objections. Following the ratio of H.M Venkataswamy (supra), another Co-ordinate Bench in Dyavamma vs State of Karnataka and Others , WP 50771 of 2019 D.D 11.12.2020 (Dyavamma), under similar circumstances has held that where the order passed under Section 28(3) is non- speaking, cryptic and unreasoned, the consequential Final Notification under Section 28(4) cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 17. The Division Bench of this Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB vs Venkateshappa and Others , Writ Appeal 461 of 2016 D.D 06.05.2022 (Venkateshappa) has reiterated that the Government Circulars including the Circular dated 17.03.2007 are binding on the acquisition authorities and the failure of the SLAO to adhere to the binding direction or to properly deal with the objection vitiates the entire acquisition. The appeal filed by the SLAO herein was accordingly dismissed, affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition. 18. The appeal filed by the SLAO herein was accordingly dismissed, affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition. 18. Similarly, in Renukaradhya vs State of Karnataka and Others , WP 19693 of 2024, D.D 14.02.2025 (Renukaradhya) this Court has again taken the view that where order under Section 28(3) does not reflect independent application of mind or consideration of the objections, the acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained, and the matter was remitted to the SLAO for fresh consideration of the objections in accordance with law. 19. These decisions when read cursively, conclusively establish that (1). Enquiry under Section 28(2) and 28(3) is quasi-judicial, (2). The SLAO must record reasons demonstrating application of mind, (3). Failure to consider objections renders 28(3) order void, and (4). The Final Notification under Section 28(4) founded on such an invalid order cannot stand. 20. A perusal of the records including the Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 and the order issued under Section 28(3) dated 20.01.2023 indicates that in the cases where objections were filed they have not been considered and the order passed under 28(3) are cryptic, non- speaking and devoid of reasons. In the case of WP 34227 of 2024, the complete absence of notice under Section 28(2) vitiates the entire process. The statutory requirement of conducting a meaningful enquiry under Sections 28(2) and 28(3) recording reasons and application of mind to the objections have not been complied. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings in all the three petitions stands vitiated. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 20.01.2023 passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act in respect of petitioners’ lands being non-speaking and unreasoned are hereby quashed. (iii) Consequently, the Final Notification dated 27.02.2023 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act insofar as they relate to the petitioners lands’ are also set aside. (iv) The matter is remitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who shall (a) issue proper notice wherever required under Section 28 (2), (b) afford the petitioners’ a meaningful opportunity of hearing, (c) consider the objections including reliance on the Government Circular dated 18.03.2013 and pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order under Section 28(3) in accordance with law. (iv) The matter is remitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who shall (a) issue proper notice wherever required under Section 28 (2), (b) afford the petitioners’ a meaningful opportunity of hearing, (c) consider the objections including reliance on the Government Circular dated 18.03.2013 and pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order under Section 28(3) in accordance with law. (v) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (vi) Until fresh orders are passed, the respondents shall not precipitate the matter nor disturb the petitioners possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. All the contentions are kept open to be urged in the proceedings before the authority.