ORDER : 1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking quash of notifications dated 20.10.2012 issued under Sections 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 as per Annexure “A” and “B” respectively as well as the Notification dated 06.09.2013 issued under Section 28(4) of the said Act as per Annexure "C" in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned. 2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, necessary to note that originally four petitioners filed the above writ petition. Subsequently, by memos dated 12.07.2016 and 20.01.2020 petitioner No.4 and petitioner No.1 sought dismissal of writ petition as withdrawn as far as their claim was concerned. Accordingly by order dated 10.08.2016 and by another order dated 05.02.2020 writ petition as regards the petitioner Nos.4 and 1 respectively was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore this writ petition is to be considered only in respect of case of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 3. Petitioner No.2 claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.100/3P3 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas, Sy.No.100/3P2 measuring 0.36.8, Sy.No.100/1P2 measuring 0.08, Sy.No.100/1P3 measuring 0.08 guntas. Petitioner No.3 claims to be the owner of land in Sy.No.100/1P4 measuring 0.08 guntas, Sy.No.100/1P1 measuring 0.15 guntas, Sy.No.100/3P1 measuring 2.29 and 1/2 guntas, Sy.No.96/4P measuring 2 acres 31 guntas, Sy.No.96/3 measuring 0.13 guntas, all situated in Sarathi village, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District. 4. Case of the petitioners is that aforesaid lands are the fertile lands and that they have been growing paddy, coconut, sugarcane, jowar and cotton and other agricultural crops in the aforesaid lands, which is the only source of their livelihood. That they have made improvements upon the aforesaid lands investing huge sums of money for digging bore wells, laying pipelines, constructing RCC machine rooms and the cattle sheds for cows etc. 5. That by the impugned notifications respondents sought to acquire an area of 286.02 acres and 13.30 acres in Sarathi and Kurubarahalli villages respectively for the purpose of development of industrial area. That the Special Land Acquisition officer without giving opportunity to the petitioners to establish their contentions and without considering their objections and without even considering the nature of the land, recommended for acquisition by holding that 90% of the farmers were agreeable to give up their lands at Rs.25 to 28 lakhs per acre and under the circumstances, objections of remaining 10% of the farmers need not be considered. The order thus passed by the Special Acquisition Officer under Section 28(3) of the Act, is illegal and unjustified. 6. That the State Government issued notification under Section 3(1) of the Act without application of mind without holding survey or any preliminary inquiry as regards the need for formation and development of industrial area in Sarathi and Kurubarhalli villages. That Harihar town is at a distance of about 12 Kilometers from the Sarathi village. The State Government had earlier acquired vast extent of agricultural lands near Harihar town for the purpose of developing industrial area. All the aforesaid acquired lands have remained fallow without any use. Industrial sheds have become dilapidated and are on the verge of collapse. None of the industries are functioning in the said industrial area. Some of the industries and factories which were started have drawn shutters and have closed their operation. Even the Kirloskar factory has closed down its operation. When such a vast extent of land remained fallow near Harihar town, there was every scope for the State Government to use the same for the industrial purposes. There was no requirement for acquiring agricultural land of Sarathi and Kurubarahalli villages for developing industrial area. Thus, the notifications issued seeking acquisition of the aforesaid land is arbitrary, perverse, illegal and suffers from want of application of mind as regards the need to develop the industrial area. 7. That lands at Sarathi village are agricultural lands and are very fertile situated at a distance of just about two kilometers from Tungabadra river. That in the lands of the petitioners various agricultural crops such as paddy, coconut, areca nut, jowar sugarcane and cotton are grown. That the State Government has constructed Kondachikere water channel which passes through these agricultural lands providing water resources. That the entire proposal for acquisition has been made at the instance of some politically influenced farmers who have misused their land and some of the farmers have sold their soil to brick factories and made huge sums of money. Thus the acquisition is not for the benefit of public purposes. Hence sought for quashing of the notifications. 8. Objection statements have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 contending inter alia that the lands were sought to be acquired for the industrial purposes. Thus the acquisition is not for the benefit of public purposes. Hence sought for quashing of the notifications. 8. Objection statements have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 contending inter alia that the lands were sought to be acquired for the industrial purposes. That upon the objections filed by the petitioners the Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted spot inspection on 07.12.2012 and found that lands of the petitioners were in amidst of notified lands and the same will come in the alignment of project and hence it was necessary to acquire the lands for completion of project and rejected the objections of land owners and thereafter issued the final notification. That 90% of the landowners have given their consent in writing that they have no objection in respondents acquiring the lands if they were paid Rs.28 lakhs per acre as compensation and an additional amount for structures and trees, if any, present on the land. They have given consent for acquisition proceeding as a result the State Government has issued final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act on 06.09.2013 and the lands of the petitioners stood vested with the State Government free from all encumbrance. 9. It is further contended that out of 260.09 acres of land acquired, compensation has already been paid to the landowners to an extent of 224.04 acres and the respondent- KIADB has already handed over 242.17 acres of land to the development section of KIADB for development of industrial area and to provide employment. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has followed due process of law as contemplated in considering objections filed by the petitioners. Acquisition is in the public interest and for development of industrial area. The respondents have taken due consideration and fixed the rate of the land per acre at Rs.28 lakhs with an extra compensation for any building constructed before the issuance of preliminary notification and 90% of the landowners have accepted the compensation and handed over their lands to the Respondent- KIADB after receiving the compensation. Hence sought for rejection of the Writ Petition. 10. Smt.Sowkhya Patil, learned advocate appearing for Shri G. Balakrishna Shastry for petitioner Nos.2 and 3, reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition, submitted that the entire process of acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioners is fraught with non-application of mind. Hence sought for rejection of the Writ Petition. 10. Smt.Sowkhya Patil, learned advocate appearing for Shri G. Balakrishna Shastry for petitioner Nos.2 and 3, reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition, submitted that the entire process of acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioners is fraught with non-application of mind. Taking through the records and the photographs enclosed therewith, she submitted that the lands are irrigated with water channel running through the said lands constructed by the respondent-State Government by investing several lakhs of rupees. She submitted that if agricultural lands of this nature are converted into industrial area, the very purpose of constructing and providing the water resources would render useless causing huge loss to the public exchequer. Learned counsel thus vehemently submitted that the very purpose of acquiring the land for the industrial purposes runs contrary to the original scheme of the respondent-State in providing irrigational infrastructures to the lands. She further submitted that there is a vast extent of industrial area lying vacant just about few kilometers away from the present land which could well be utilized for the industrial purposes. That the objection statements filed by the petitioners bringing to the notice of the Special Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the aforesaid nature, existence and status of the land has not been considered. Thus, submitted non- consideration of the objection statement filed by the petitioners is a ground enough to quash the notifications. 11. Shri Spoorthy Hegde, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3, reiterating the contents of the statement of objections vehemently submitted at the outset that 90% of the landowners have already given consent for acquisition of land and have even received the compensation without any demur. It is only the petitioner No.2 and 3 in the present petition who are objecting for acquisition of land. Drawing attention of this Court to the map that is produced along with affidavit dated 23.09.2024 learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the land belonging to the petitioners falls right in the middle of the entire industrial area sought to be developed in terms of the notifications. They also pointed out that the road which is formed in the said industrial area runs cutting across the lands belonging to the petitioners. They also pointed out that the road which is formed in the said industrial area runs cutting across the lands belonging to the petitioners. Strategically and in terms of the development scheme, there is no possibility of excluding the lands belonging to the petitioners. They submitted that this aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the respondents while proposing and recommending acquisition of the lands belong to the petitioners. Besides, the same would affect the compactness of the area sought to be developed. They further submit that out of an extent of 260 acres of land acquired in the final notification compensation in respect of 248 acres of land has already been disbursed and only in respect of the of lands involved in the present Writ petition compensation is not paid. Thus they submitted the acquisition process has been completed in all respect and the writ petition is therefore required to be rejected in limine. 12. Heard and perused the records. 13. The only contention of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 in this writ petition is that their land is fertile having water resource being used for growing several agricultural crops and that the land which was acquired for industrial purposes near Harihara has remained unutilised and that without putting into use of the said land acquiring the agriculture land for industrial purposes apart from one without application of mind would also deprive the petitioners of their only source of livelihood. Learned counsel for the petitioners 2 and 3 relied upon the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 26117/2022 (H.S. Abdul Riyaz Basha v. State of Karnataka and others) in justification of her contention that the respondent-KIADB in discharge of its statutory functions has to first determine the area that is required for establishment of industries and only thereafter should venture to acquire the land required that it should not indulge in notifying the land which are not acquired 14. The vehement submission made by learned HCGP and learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that as against the acquisition of 260.09 acres of land acquired except the petitioners in the instant case all other land owners have voluntarily agreed to receive the compensation allowing the land to be acquired by the respondents for the purpose of establishment of industrial area they also submitted even in the present writ petition, petitioner Nos.1 and 4 have withdrawn the writ petition and have thereafter accepted the compensation. Thus, they submitted when the majority of the landowners have consented for acquisition of land, minuscule percentage of the landowners questioning the acquisition proceedings cannot be countenanced. In support of this submission they rely upon the following judgments: 1. Om Prakash and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 1 2. K. Venkataramanappa Vs. The State of Karnataka, 1984 (2) KLJ 326 3. Smt. Venkamma and Others Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others, 1995 SCC OnLine KAR 69 : AIR 1995 KAR 51 4. Sawaran Lata and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2010 (4) SCC 532 5. Anand Buttons Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2005 (9) SCC 164 15. In terms of the preliminary notification dated20.10.2012 an extent of 299.32 acres of land situated in Sarathi and Kurubarahalli villages of Kasaba Hobli, Harihara Taluk, Dhavanagere district was sought to be acquired by the Respondents for the industrial purposes. Thereafter, by final notification dated 06.09.2013, an extent of 260.09 acres was acquired. Annexure-E to the writ petition is the order dated 30.12.2012 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. Perusal of the said document indicates that majority of the landowners have expressed their consent and willingness for respondent- KIADB acquiring the lands on they being paid a sum of Rs.35 lakhs to Rs.40 lakhs per acre as compensation. Few of the landowners had expressed their objections for acquisition of land. It appears considering the compactness of the lands some of the lands have been excluded from acquisition. 16. Few of the landowners had expressed their objections for acquisition of land. It appears considering the compactness of the lands some of the lands have been excluded from acquisition. 16. As already noted, Petitioner No.1, namely, Sri Karibasappa Duggavathi, son of Holiyappa Duggavathi, who was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.101/ 3 measuring 1.24.04 acres situated at Sarathi village, since deceased represented by his legal representatives had filed a memo seeking dismissal of the writ petition agreeing to receive the award amount. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 05.02.2020. Similarly the petitioner No.4 namely Smt.Huchamma had also filed a memo along with an affidavit seeking dismissal of writ petition as withdrawn, agreeing and undertaking to receive the compensation, accepting the same writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.08.2016. 17. This Court had directed the respondent-KIADB to file the affidavit with regard to the situation and location of the lands belonging to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly an affidavit dated 23.09.2024 along a copy of layout map showing the existence of the lands being claimed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is produced. Perusal of the said map would indicate that the lands belonging to the petitioners are situated right amidst the industrial layout that is formed by the respondent-KIADB. No doubt though the water channel constructed by the respondent-State runs through the lands forming part of said layout, the fact remains that the land belonging to the petitioners is surrounded by the land utilised for formation of Industrial layout. The said sketch is scanned hereunder for immediate reference: 18. After hearing the matter, this Court had directed the respondent-KIADB to furnish details and other information regarding payment of compensation in respect of land subject matter of the acquisition. In response thereof, a memo dated 01.03.2025 is filed by the respondent authorities giving the details of the compensation paid, in that as against 260 acres of land acquired in terms of the final notification compensation in respect of 248 acres of land has already been paid. 19. In response thereof, a memo dated 01.03.2025 is filed by the respondent authorities giving the details of the compensation paid, in that as against 260 acres of land acquired in terms of the final notification compensation in respect of 248 acres of land has already been paid. 19. In the light of the factual situation involved in the present writ petition, namely majority of the land owners having consented for acquisition and having received the compensation and more particularly with regard to the location of the land of the petitioners 2 and 3 as noted in the sketch and extracted hereinabove and in the light of the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, this court do not see any reason to interfere with the acquisition process undertaken by the respondents. Resultant writ petition stands dismissed.