ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. 1. These two writ petitions challenged the preliminary notification dated 07.02.2022 and the final notification dated 27.02.2023 issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD, Act’ for short). Brief facts: 2. W.P.No.20840/2023 is preferred by the Parvathamma, who claims to be the owner of 1 acre in Sy.No.67/3 (‘petition property’ for short) acquired under a registered partition deed dated 24.04.2019. It is stated that the petition property is her only remaining land, her earlier lands in Sy.No.64/3, 64/11, 83 and 84 were already acquired for NH-207 including her house. It is stated that land is fertile, yield two crops annually and is located within the gramathana limits, abutting rajakaluve and D.C. quarters nearby. 3. W.P.No.19272/2023 is preferred by Muniraju, who claims to be the owner of 5 guntas in Sy.No.78/2 purchased under registered sale deed dated 07.11.2019. He has converted the land for commercial purpose and has obtained a industrial unit in the said land. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objections filed by the petitioners have not been considered in the manner known to law, and a bare perusal of the endorsement / order passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act does not disclose any reasoning for rejection. It is further submitted that similarly placed landowners in respect of Sy.No.78/11 and Sy.No.78/13 belonging to Sri Ugam Raj and Marappa, whose lands are situated adjoining the petitioners’ land, had approached this Court challenging the very preliminary notification dated 07.02.2022 and final notification dated 07.02.2023, in the case of Munegowda S., Vs. The State Of Karnataka and Others , W.P.No.19238/2023 D.D 22.01.2025 (Munegowda S.) preferred by the owner of land in Sy.No.78/9 which was originally numbered as Sy.No.64/3 have approached this Court, this Court has quashed the acquisition by order dated 22.01.2025 on the specific ground that the respondent- authority has failed to consider the objection in accordance with law and the order under Section 28(3) did not reflect application of mind. It is argued that the lands of the said similarly situated landowners were dropped from acquisition at serial Nos.64 and 66 only on the ground that they fall within the gramthana limits. It is argued that the lands of the said similarly situated landowners were dropped from acquisition at serial Nos.64 and 66 only on the ground that they fall within the gramthana limits. The petitioners’ land also falls within the very same gramthana limits as is evident from the material on record. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason for the respondent-authority to acquire the petitioners’ land while dropping the adjacent lands, particularly when the petitioners’ objections on supporting materials are substantially similar to those considered in the earlier case which resulted in quashing. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand submits that even assuming that the petitioners' lands are fertile agricultural lands, they are required for maintaining the contiguity and compactness of the industrial layout, and therefore no fault can be found in the recommendation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer(SLAO). It is further submitted that when the objections raised by the landowners are similar, the reasons for rejection may also naturally be similar, and issuance of cyclostyle or formulaic order would not by itself vitiate the acquisition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Order passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, 1966 insofar as the petitioners’ land is concerned does not satisfy the requirement of fair, independent and objective consideration of the objections filed by the petitioners. The record does not disclose any specific reasoning dealing with the objections raised, nor does it indicate any application of mind to the documents produced by the petitioners, particularly their contentions that the land falls within the gramthana limits and that a commercial or industrial activity has already been established on the said land pursuant to a valid conversion order. It is also not in dispute that in Sy.No.78/11 and 78/13 belonging to the similarly placed persons situated on either side of the petitioners’ land were dropped from acquisition on specific ground that they fall within the gramthana limit. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Munegowda S., at paragraph No.9 has held as under: “9. There is a considerable force in the submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Munegowda S., at paragraph No.9 has held as under: “9. There is a considerable force in the submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the lands in Sy.No.78/11 and Sy.No.78/13 belonging to Sri.Ugam Raj and Sri.Mariyappa, situated on either side of the lands belonging to the petitioner have been dropped from the acquisition as shown at Sl.No.64 and Sl.No.66 of the order passed under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 for the reasons of the said lands being situated within the Gramatana limits, there is no justifiable reasons for respondent-Authorities to acquire the lands of the petitioner in Sy.Nos.78/9 and 78/12 which are also situated within the Gramatana limits.” 9. When the petitioners’ land is stated to have situated in the gramthana limit, the respondent-authority was required to record justifiable reason as to why the petitioners’ land alone is proposed for acquisition while adjacent landowners have been excluded. This Court in the case of Munegowda S. , in an identical factual situation concerning the same preliminary and final notifications has quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the objections have not been considered in the manner known to law and the order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, was devoid of reasoning. The present case stands on the same footing, and no distinguishing material is produced by the respondents to justify a different approach. 10. The contention of the respondents that the land is required for maintaining the contiguity of the industrial layout cannot be accepted in the absence of any layout plan, or any material to show that the exclusion of the petitioners’ land would disrupt the compactness of the layout. On the contrary, the admitted fact that adjacent lands have been excluded for being within the gramthana limits militates against the argument of contiguity. Further, the submission that cyclostyle order is sufficient when objections are similar cannot be accepted. The law requires the SLAO to consider each objections independently, with due regard to content, material, and grounds urged by the landowners. 11. A mechanical reproduction of a standard approach paragraph without addressing the specific contention is contrary to the mandate of Section 28(3) of the KIAD, Act. The law requires the SLAO to consider each objections independently, with due regard to content, material, and grounds urged by the landowners. 11. A mechanical reproduction of a standard approach paragraph without addressing the specific contention is contrary to the mandate of Section 28(3) of the KIAD, Act. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD, Act and the consequent final notification dated 27.02.2023, insofar as the petitioners’ land is concerned, are vitiated for non- consideration of the objections and for the absence of reasons. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed ii. The final notification dated 27.02.2023 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners’ land in Sy.No.67/3 and Sy.No.78/2 is hereby quashed iii. The order passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, 1966 in respect of the petitioners’ land is also quashed iv. The matter is remitted back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to reconsider the petitioners’ objections afresh in accordance with law after affording an hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking and reasoned order. v. The petitioners shall remain present before the SLAO on 10.12.2025 , without awaiting further notice. vi. It is made clear that the SLAO shall take into account the following: a. The petitioners’ contention that the land falls within the gramthana limits. b. In regard to the adjacent lands which have been dropped. c. The supporting material placed by the petitioners, and shall record specific reasons for conclusion arrived at. d. Until such consideration is completed and fresh order is passed, the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. vii. All the other contentions of the parties are kept open.