ORDER : 1. In these batch of writ petitions, petitioners are seeking quashing of notification dated 19.07.2012 and the notification dated 07.08.2013 issued under Sections 4 (1) and 6(1) respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent-State seeking acquisition of lands in Sy.Nos Nos. 65, 66, 67/2, 68/1, 69 and 71, in all measuring 19 acres 18 guntas situated Naganathapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for the purposes of expansion of Central Jail at Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru. 2. Common case of the Petitioners is that they are the owners of land forming part of the aforesaid survey numbers having purchased the same under different registered deeds of sale as detailed in their respective writ petitions and being in possession and enjoyment of the same. Some of the petitioners had applied and obtained the change of land usage from agricultural to non agricultural residential purposes. Some of them having entered into agreements for joint development had even obtained requisite permissions from the statutory authorities for the purpose of development and had even commenced construction of the residential apartment on the aforesaid land. 3. That earlier by Notification dated 19.02.1980 respondents had acquired certain lands forming part of very same survey numbers for providing road to new central jail. Thereafter by another notification dated 09.03.1989 respondent sought to acquire remaining extent of land in said survey numbers. That though a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 24.05.1990 the respondent had denotified the land. That by a third notification dated 22.12.1998 respondent had again sought to acquire the lands which were omitted subsequently. That by an order dated 10.06.2001 respondent-State had permitted acquisition of the aforesaid lands invoking provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.10883/2012. That the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 12.04.2012 allowed the writ petition quashing the said order keeping open the option for the respondent to take action in accordance with law by issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and by providing an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard in the matter if the property was really needed for any public purpose. Thus, the present notifications are issued for the fourth time indicating that the requirement of land by the respondent authorities is neither genuine nor imminent. 4. Thus, the present notifications are issued for the fourth time indicating that the requirement of land by the respondent authorities is neither genuine nor imminent. 4. That the objection statements were filed by the petitioners. Special Land Acquisition Officer in his report dated 25/26.03.2013 had recommended for reconsideration of the matter. That there has been non-compliance of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . Thus, the petitioners claiming to be the owners of their respective portions for land as above, are before this Court seeking quash of the notifications as referred to hereinabove. 5. Objection statements have been filed by the Respondents in W.P. Nos.57465-57466/2013 contending inter-alia: (a) That the prison was inaugurated in the year 2001 and was constructed with the planned capacity of 2,292 inmates. That, at present the inmate strength is 4,400 and is presently overcrowded to the tune 200%. The overcrowding requires urgent measures of expansion to ease the burden. Additionally, segregation of certain categories of prisoners requires additional space for construction of high-security cells. As per various directives of the Government, the under-trial prisoners and the convicted prisoners requires to be lodged in separate prisons. As such, there is a need for bifurcation of the present prison barracks. (b) That the entire prison complex was planned to be spread over an area of 154.26 acres to cater to the above requirement including necessary amenities such as staff quarters, guard rest room, patrolling roads, power house, parade ground, parking lots for the escort Police vehicles etc. (c) At present the Prison Department is in possession of 130.15 acres of land out of the said land, 39.5 acres of land has been utilized for the construction of the main prison complex. (d) That an area to an extent of 19.26 acres of land, that is proposed to be acquired is to meet the expansion plans of this prison which is vital and necessary as the planned construction of high security jail and associated watch towers requires this parcel of land. That apart from the constructed prison complex, the remaining area under possession of the Prison Department is spread thinly around the present premises. As a result, construction plan cannot be executed as more area of land in a single parcel is required for the urgent expansion plans to ensure smoother administration and to secure the premises. That apart from the constructed prison complex, the remaining area under possession of the Prison Department is spread thinly around the present premises. As a result, construction plan cannot be executed as more area of land in a single parcel is required for the urgent expansion plans to ensure smoother administration and to secure the premises. (e) That prescribed area per inmate as per the norms of the various Government Authorities is at the rate of 60 square feet per inmate. At present, the total built up area (barracks and cells) for the lodging inmates is 1,40,400 square feet. The area required for lodging 4,460 inmates at 60 square feet per inmate is 2,60,600 square feet. There is a shortfall of 1,20,000 square feet at present. (f) That as per the Model Prison Manual drawn up by the Government the maximum strength of the central prison is 1500. At present, the strength of the under- trials alone is 3000 with the numbers increasing on the daily basis. Hence the prison for the lodging under-trials also requires bifurcation for the security aspects and for smoother administration of prison. (g) That the Prison Department requires the quarters to be constructed adjacent to the prison to deal with the category emergency situation. That there are total of 168 quarters but requirement stands at 454 quarters for the present staff strength. When more number of staff are posted as per the augmentation plan for the prison, the requirement of quarters is bound to increase 1100 for three jails that are planned. The minimum requirement of land for construction of staff quarters is to an extent of 5 to 10 acres depending upon the requirement. (h) As per the directives of this Court, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court are required to be established in the central prison premises, provisions of infrastructure for the establishment of three courts requires additional land adjacent to the prison premises. (i) Thus the land is urgently required to meet the expansion plan of this Prison and this requirement is crucial widely considering all aspects of security premises, segregation of hardcore criminals and human rights requirements for the inmates and increased intake. Contending as above, sought dismissal of the petition. 6. Sri. (i) Thus the land is urgently required to meet the expansion plan of this Prison and this requirement is crucial widely considering all aspects of security premises, segregation of hardcore criminals and human rights requirements for the inmates and increased intake. Contending as above, sought dismissal of the petition. 6. Sri. B.C. Seetharam Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.57465/2013 taking this Court through the records submitted that: (a) The respondent-State had originally issued a notification dated 09.02.1980 seeking acquisition of land in Sy.No.65 of Naganathapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for the purpose of providing road to the Central Jail, Bengaluru. That the respondent-State had utilised the portion of the said land for widening of the road. Thereafter by another notification dated 09.03.1989, the respondent-Authorities had sought to acquire the remaining extent of land in the said recent Sy.No.65. A declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1894 was also issued on 24.05.1990, declaring that the entire extent of land in the Sy.No.65 was required for the purpose of construction of the Central Jail. The said acquisition was challenged by the landowners by filing writ petition in W.P.No.6153/1990 and W.P.No.14187/1990. That this Court had granted an interim relief on 09.07.1990 with regard to possession of the property. That during the pendency of the said writ petitions, the respondent-Authorities had withdrawn the said notification and accordingly the writ petitions were disposed of having become infructuous by order dated 26.08.1992. (b) He further submitted that in the meanwhile Director General, Prisons had sent a letter dated 03.11.1991 as per Annexure-F, informing that there would not be any security concern, if the land in Sy.No.65 was dropped from acquisition. Accordingly, a notification dated 01.08.1991 was issued under Section 4 8(1) of the Act, 1894 withdrawing the land bearing Sy.No.65 from acquisition for the purpose of construction of new Central Jail, Bangalore. Thereafter, the respondent-State had issued one more notification on 22.12.1998 under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 notifying the remaining extent of land measuring 5 acres and 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.65/1 for the purpose of construction of new Central Jail, Bangalore. But, since the earlier proceedings having been dropped, the respondent did not proceed to issue declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1894 in respect of said land in Sy.No.65. But, since the earlier proceedings having been dropped, the respondent did not proceed to issue declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1894 in respect of said land in Sy.No.65. Things stood thus, the respondent-Authorities issued the impugned notification dated 19.07.2012 under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 proposing to acquire the very same land for the fourth time. (c) The petitioners had filed statement of objections to said preliminary notification on 23.08.2012. That in the meanwhile, the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer had sent a report to the respondent-State along with the spot inspection report, showing existence of 26 buildings, vacant sites, RCC buildings, engineering workshop etc. That without considering the previous notifications that were issued in respect of the very same land and without even referring to dropping of the notification on two earlier occasions for same not being required for the construction of new Central Jail, Bangalore and without even considering the statement of objection filed by the land owners, the respondent- Authorities proceeded to issue declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1894 on 07.08.2013. (d) The respondent No.3 in turn had sent a report to the respondent No.1 on 25/26.03.2013 explaining the existing condition of the land and requesting to take appropriate decision in the matter with regard to land bearing Sy.No.65/1 and Sy.No.65/2. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the respondent-Authorities without taking into consideration of the very own reports of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also the fact of earlier notification having been withdrawn and the acquisition having been dropped and also having been represented to the petitioners/landowners that their land had been left out of acquisition, could not have proceeded further to acquire the land as sought to be done in the instant case. (e) He further submitted that the respondent-Authorities could not have ignored the multiple acquisition in respect of the very same land was found to be not feasible and if proceeded further would cause hardship and prejudice to the interest of the land owners. He further submitted that no award is passed till date, though there was no impediment for the respondent-Authorities to have proceed further. Hence, sought for allowing of the petition. 7. He further submitted that no award is passed till date, though there was no impediment for the respondent-Authorities to have proceed further. Hence, sought for allowing of the petition. 7. Sri.H.C. Sundaresh, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No. 1114/2014 submitted that: (a) The petitioners purchased the property bearing Sy.No.67/2, measuring 2 acres and 18 guntas after having enquired from the concern respondent- Authorities that the said land had not been subject matter of any acquisition and an endorsement in this regard had been issued by the respondent- SLAO on 07.02.2008. He further submitted that attempt to acquire the said land made earlier by the respondent-authorities had been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10883/2012. (b) That even after lapse of the statutory period contemplated under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013') neither the award is passed nor the possession is taken, the acquisition is therefore requires to be quashed. 8. Sri.Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4611/2014 submitted: (a) That though the petitioner purchased an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.69, under deed of sale dated 12.05.2009, name of the petitioner has not been shown in the notification, only the name of the vendor of the petitioner is shown at Sl.Nos.15 and 16 of the notification. He submitted that the land sought to be acquired is not required for the purpose as sought to be made up by the respondent-authorities, inasmuch as the land were excluded from acquisition, as seen in the endorsement dated 09.01.2006. (b) That specific contentions were raised by the petitioners in their statement of objections pointing out to the authorities that there is a land abutting the Central Jail, which was acquired and remained unutilised for the purpose for which it was acquired and there was also vast extent of Government land situated on the northern and western side of the Central Jail and the said land could have been utilised for the purpose of construction of Central Jail, if the same was required for the purpose of expansion. That the proposed acquisition was contrary to the usage of the land regulated in the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). That the proposed acquisition was contrary to the usage of the land regulated in the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). That even as per the relevant regulations/ Central Jail Manual, land situated within the limit of 100 metres from the private property or from the main road, cannot be made use for the purpose of expansion of Central Jail. (c) That the respondent-SLAO had indeed recommended for dropping of the acquisition as per his communication dated 25/26.03.2013 produced at Annexure-M and these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the respondent-Authorities before issuing the impugned notifications. Hence, sought for allowing of the petition. 9. Sri. P.M. Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.47110/2017 submitted: (a) That though the petitioners purchased the sites in terms of deed of sale dated 19.07.1998 much prior to issuance of the notification in the year 2013-13, the name of the petitioners have not been reflected in the notification. (b) That possession of the land has not been taken and no award has been passed as required under Section 11A of the Act, as such the acquisition ought to be held to have been lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. (c) Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court M/s Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2013 (4) SCC 210 referring to paragraph Nos.21 to 30 of the said judgment, learned counsel vehemently submitted that the acquisition in the present case requires to be quashed. (d) He further referred to a communication dated 13/14.06.2012 issued by the respondent-SLAO to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore wherein a specific reference is made with regard to availability of 113 acres and 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.100 situated at Gorau Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk which is about 35 kilometres away from the present Central Jail and could be conveniently utilised saving huge public exchequer involved in the proposed acquisition. Thus he vehemently submitted both legal and factual aspect of the matter, the proposed acquisition is of no avail. Hence sought for allowing of the petition. 10. Sri. Thus he vehemently submitted both legal and factual aspect of the matter, the proposed acquisition is of no avail. Hence sought for allowing of the petition. 10. Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.51672/2013 and Sri Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.21618/2022 apart from reiterating the averments and contents of the memorandum of petitions, supplemented the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as noted above. In addition, Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Ganga Bishnu Swaika and Others Vs. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society and Others, (1968) AIR (SC) 615 and the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sukhdev Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, (1993) 3 LJR 495 to substantiate his contention with regard to Government satisfying the requirement of the land for the public purposes by leading evidence in that regard which also requires consideration of the report under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . 11. In response, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde. N, learned HCGP vehemently submitted: (a) That the award could not be passed in view of the interim order of stay granted in the aforesaid writ petitions. (b) That the respondent-State would pass the award under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (c) That the proposed land is required for the purpose of safety and to provide buffer zone to the Central Jail, Bangalore. (d) That the entire land sought to be acquired is vacant, except only 2 houses in Sy.Nos.68 and 68/2 and in the rest of the land only temporary sheds are existing. (e) Withdrawal of the earlier notifications cannot be the ground to quash the present notification, as the issue involved in the present notification has to be addressed taking into consideration the present requirement of land for the purpose of expansion of Central Jail. (f) He filed a memo dated 14.02.2025 along with 5 documents and another memo dated 17.02.2025 with additional 13 documents. (f) He filed a memo dated 14.02.2025 along with 5 documents and another memo dated 17.02.2025 with additional 13 documents. Referring to a statement containing the availability of land along with a layout plan showing the existence of the present building as per Document No.12 enclosed to the said memo dated 17.02.2025 he submitted that in view of the increased number of inmates and requirement of law to provide the buffer zone, the proposed acquisition has become imperative and indispensable. Relocation of the existing prison is not feasible. (g) That the objection statement filed by the land owners have been taken into consideration before issuing the final notification and in any events respondent-State is willing to pay the compensation under the Act, 2013. There is no ground for quashing the notification and hence sought for dismissal of the petitions. 12. Heard and perused the records. 13. By the impugned notifications the respondent-State sought to acquire an extent of 19 acres 18 guntas of land in Survey Nos.65, 66, 67/2, 68/1, 69 and 71, measuring 19 acres 18 guntas situated at Naganathapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for the purpose of expansion of Agrahara Central Jail. After issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act objections were filed by some of the owners of the land. Notices regarding enquiry were issued on 24.09.2012, 03.10.2012, 02.10.2012 and 02.11.2012, and the enquiry was taken up as contemplated under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . 14. Petitioners in these proceedings heavily relied upon the communication dated 25/26.03.2013 which was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer addressed to the Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka. Necessary to advert to the contents of the said communication which are as under: (a) That there was no participation in the enquiry proceedings by Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison, Karnataka. However, by a Communication dated 10.10.2012 it was informed that since the notification has been issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17(1)(4) of the Act there was no requirement of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. That since the objectors had approached the Civil Court as well as the High Court questioning the notifications that were issued on earlier occasion their demand was not bonafide. That since the objectors had approached the Civil Court as well as the High Court questioning the notifications that were issued on earlier occasion their demand was not bonafide. That the land was required for the purpose of expansion of the Central Jail, it was thus requested that immediate action be taken to acquire the land. That except the said communication there has been no participation by the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison, Karnataka; (b) That upon inspection of the acquired land it was found that land in Sy.No.65/1 consists of 26 ACC sheet houses, 1 RCC building, 1 Engineering workshop; Sy.No.65/2 consists of 1 ACC sheet roof house; Sy.No.66 is enclosed with iron sheet compound; Sy.No.67/2 consists of one watchman shed and is enclosed with iron sheet compound; Sy.No.68/1 consists of 14 ACC sheet houses and five RCC sheet houses, one cement shop; Sy.No.69 consists of an RCC house and 2 Watchmen shed; (c) That several portions of the land sought to be acquired have been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes by the concerned authorities and orders in this regard have been issued during the year 2008 and 2010; (d) Gist of the statement of objections which were filed to the preliminary notifications has also been extracted in the said communication; Wherein it is contended that the entire cost of the land sought to be acquired has not been deposited and only an extent of Rs.9 crores has been deposited. That the cost of the land is approximately Rs.5 crores per acre. As such the total cost of the acquisition would be about Rs.100 to Rs.150 crores. That there was no requirement of any land for the purpose of expansion of the central jail in as much as the land earlier required was still unutilised. That since the lands have been converted and residential layouts have been formed, sites have been purchased by various persons if the acquisition of land is proceeded further the said persons would be rendered homeless. That land proposed to be acquired is situated about one kilometre away from the State highway [Hosur Road] and the road connecting to the said land is about 100-150 feet wide which is completely developed with commercial buildings, falling within the jurisdiction of BBMP. That land proposed to be acquired is situated about one kilometre away from the State highway [Hosur Road] and the road connecting to the said land is about 100-150 feet wide which is completely developed with commercial buildings, falling within the jurisdiction of BBMP. As such the cost of the land shall be calculated on the square foot basis and not on acreage basis; (e) The Special Land Acquisition Officer has thus opined that even if he determines the value of the land sought to be acquired, the same would run into several 100 crores and that view thereof, since an extent of 113 acres of land is already available situated at Koramangala Village of Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, the same could be utilised for the proposed purpose of expansion of Central Jail which would save hundreds of crores of rupees of public exchequer; (f) That there is 220 kilowatts of High Voltage Power Line running through the land proposed to be acquired and shifting or relocating of the said power line would cause additional expenses running into several crores, which requires further discussion in the matter; (g) That the Bangalore Development Authority had issued Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) during the year 2007 and 2015 in which the lands sought to be acquired have been classified as residential, commercial and industrial zones. The proposed land has not been reserved for public purposes and there has been no objection raised by the prison department. In this view of the matter, 75 metres of buffer zone as required to be kept vacant in terms of the Rules cannot be maintained; (h) In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter it is further opined by Special Land Acquisition Officer that the matter requires further detailed deliberation and discussions by the respondent-State and only thereafter to take appropriate decision; (i) That these aspects of the matter were forwarded to the Prison Department for seeking their opinion. That despite several reminders there has been no opinion or response from their side; 15. Stating as above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded a report under Section 5A of the Act to the respondent-State. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that there has been no consideration of aforesaid report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the State Government, thereby vitiating entire acquisition process. 17. Stating as above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded a report under Section 5A of the Act to the respondent-State. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that there has been no consideration of aforesaid report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the State Government, thereby vitiating entire acquisition process. 17. Learned HCGP filed a memo dated 17.02.2025 along with 13 documents. (a) Document No.1 is the communication dated 25/6.03.2013 which is already referred to hereinabove. (b) Document No.2 is an Unofficial Note dated 25.04.2013 issued by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka (Land Acquisition- 2) to the Principal Secretary, Internal Administration wherein while taking note of the contents of the aforesaid communication dated 25.03.2013 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it has been stated that since the acquisition process would lapse by 17.08.2013 and notification in terms of Section 6 (1-A) and Section 6 (1) is required to be issued within the stipulated period, it is requested that necessary direction to the concerned officials be issued immediately with regard to deposit of compensation amount in respect of proposed acquisition and for submission of a report to the Government in this regard. (c) Contents of Communication dated 02.05.2013 (document No.3) indicate that the Chief Secretary Internal Administration has directed the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka and Inspector General of Prisons, to contact the Department of Revenue for the purpose of acquisition of the aforesaid land and to submit a report to the Government within one week with regard to action taken in the matter. (d) In response thereof, Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka and Inspector General of Prisons by communication dated 10.05.2013 (document No.4) intimated that there is a constant increase in the number of the prisoners and that there is possibility of increase in the said numbers in the future. As such there is a requirement of additional land. That it was in furtherance to this requirement, 19 acres 26 guntas of land was sought to be acquired on earlier occasion. That the process of acquisition could not be completed in view of the petitions filed by the land owners without making the concerned department as party to the proceedings. As such there is a requirement of additional land. That it was in furtherance to this requirement, 19 acres 26 guntas of land was sought to be acquired on earlier occasion. That the process of acquisition could not be completed in view of the petitions filed by the land owners without making the concerned department as party to the proceedings. Recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Officer for utilization of land available at Devanahalli had been made only to facilitate the land owners without taking into consideration the actual requirement of the land for the purpose of expansion of the Prison. That the escalation of cost of the land was on account of delay in acquiring the land. Thus, it is requested to expedite the process of acquisition of said 19 acre 26 guntas of said land has sought to be acquired under the impugned notification. (e) Thereafter, the Principal Secretary Internal Administration has issued unofficial note (document No.5) on 01.06.2013 calling for the report with regard to acquisition of the aforesaid land. (f) The Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka by communication dated 12.07.2013 (document No.7) addressed to the special land acquisition officer, has called upon the Special Land Acquisition Officer to verify the contents of the letter dated 10.05.2013 that was issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Prison to the Chief Secretary and the objection statement that was filed on 10.06.2013 by one Venkataswamy Reddy, and thereafter to initiate action in terms of Section 6 (1A) of the Act and to send the same for approval of the State Government. (g) In furtherance to the said communication, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by letter dated 16.07.2013 (document No.8) addressed to the Additional Director General of Police, Prison, Bengaluru, calling upon him to deposit the amount towards the cost of acquisition enabling issuance of notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act. (g) In furtherance to the said communication, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by letter dated 16.07.2013 (document No.8) addressed to the Additional Director General of Police, Prison, Bengaluru, calling upon him to deposit the amount towards the cost of acquisition enabling issuance of notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act. (h) By another communication dated 16.07.2013 (document No.9) the Special Land Acquisition Officer has informed the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Bengaluru, narrating the aspects which transpired from the date of issuance of preliminary notification till issuance of communication dated 16.07.2013 informing that there has been no response from the Additional Director General of Police, Prison and that a sum of Rs.9,95,08,500/- had been deposited and since the last date for issuance of the notification under Section 6 (1) was 09.08.2013 necessary direction was sought for issuance of said notification. (i) It appears a meeting has been held in the Chambers of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home Department on 03.08.2013 (document No.10) in which a decision has been taken to accord permission to the Revenue Department to issue final notification and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been directed to take Special care to issue final notification within stipulated deadline and to ensure acquisition process was not vitiated. The decision taken, reads as under: ''a) Since 4(1) Notification has been issued in the Gazette on 19.7.12 and permission has been accorded by Revenue Department to issue final notification, the SLAO may take special care to issue final notification within the stipulated deadline and ensure that the acquisition process is not vitiated. b) The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban may initiate proceedings under Land Revenue Act for violations of the provisions of land conversion by the land owners. c) The BDA should re-examine the CDP and take steps to earmark a buffer zone of 75 mtrs. all around the Central Prison, Bangalore. In this connection, the ADGP (Prisons) will send a request to the Commissioner, BDA. d) D.O.Letters from Home Dept, may be written to the respective Dept. for follow up action on the decision taken.'' 18. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents it is clear that the only reason for issuance of the impugned final notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was that the statutory period of one year stipulated under Section 6 of the Act for issuance of declaration was to expire on 17.08.2013. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents it is clear that the only reason for issuance of the impugned final notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was that the statutory period of one year stipulated under Section 6 of the Act for issuance of declaration was to expire on 17.08.2013. The said step in issuance of impugned final notification has been taken upon the request made by the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka and Inspector General of Prisons. That neither the objection statement nor the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Officer as noted above has been considered by the respondent-State. 19. One of the objections that was raised by the land owners was non-utilisation of the land that was earlier acquired for the purpose of expansion of the Central Prison and also availability of alternate land about 113 acres of land at Devanahalli. There has been no consideration of these aspects the matter by the respondent-State either. A statement regarding availability of land and utilization of the same as furnished at document No.12 along with a memo dated 17.02.2025 indicate that an extent of 153.12 acres of land was acquired of which an extent of 50 acres of land has been utilized where prison buildings are existing. The said statement is extracted hereunder for immediate perusal: 20. Learned HCGP has also furnished a document (extract of information) along with a memo dated 14.02.2025 giving the details as to the delay in passing the award and disbursement of the compensation, availability of the alternate land around the present jail premises and the reason for acquisition of the land in question. The said document is extracted hereunder for immediate reference: 1. Why the compensation is not yet dusbursed. 2. Why the award is not passed. 3. Is there any alternative Land in and around for present department to construct Jail. 4. Is the least Lands under the notification is required for the central jail Government has to expedite the legal process before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by communicating with learned Advocate General and to get the stay vacated at the earliest and commence addition jail building 21. Even if the aforesaid reasons are to be accepted the same do not form part of the proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is required to be taken note of by the respondent- State. Even if the aforesaid reasons are to be accepted the same do not form part of the proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is required to be taken note of by the respondent- State. Thus, these reasonings appear to have been provided subsequent to filing of this writ petition. At this belated stage, the same cannot substitute the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act, as such the same cannot be taken into consideration. 22. From the above material made available what emerges is that though the Special Acquisition Officer in his report submitted under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act had brought to the notice of the respondent-State regarding the objection statements filed by the land owners more particularly with regard to the cost of acquisition involved, status of the land and viability of acquisition in the light of availability of 113 acres of land at Devanahalli, etc., there has been no whisper or reference with regard to consideration of these aspects of the matter in the subsequent communication leading upto issuance of the final notification as noted above. Respondent-State seem to have proceeded to issue direction in furtherance to the meeting that was held on 03.08.2013 which is extracted herein above. It does not appear from the contents of the proceedings of said meeting that any of the issues that were raised by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his communication dated 25/26.03.2013 has been taken into consideration or discussed by the respondent -State. 23. Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mandates hearing of the objections, conducting of enquiry, submissions of report and decision of the Government on such report. The said provision reads as under; ''5A. Hearing of objections - (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub- section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf]or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, {either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4 , sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of that Government] The decision of the [appropriate Government] on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act." 24. Thus Sub-section (2) of Section 5A refers to the obligation on the part of the Collector, who after giving opportunity of being heard to the person interested to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the Government and the decision of the Government in this matter would be final. 25. Except producing the documents along with memos dated 14.02.2025 and 17.02.2025 referred to herein above, the respondent-State has not produced any records regarding it having take any decision upon the recommendation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his report as contemplated under Sub-Section(2) of Section 5A referred to herein above. 26. Appropriate at this juncture to refer to the settled position of law in that Apex Court in the case of Kamal Trading (Private Limited) Vs. State of West Bengal, 2012 (2) SCC 25 at paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 has held as under; ''13. Section 5-A(1) of the LA Act gives a right to any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose to raise objections to the acquisition of the said land. Section 5-A(1) of the LA Act gives a right to any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose to raise objections to the acquisition of the said land. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf. After hearing the objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary, make further inquiry. Thereafter, he has to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the appropriate Government and the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. 14. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, 'public purpose' is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. 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. 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.'' 27. Similarly in the case of Raghbir Singh Sherawat Vs. State of Haryana, 2012 (1) SCC 792 , the Apex Court at para 39 and 40 has held as under ; ''39. In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4 (1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme. 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. 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." 28. Following the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court in the case of Usha Stud an Agriculture Farms Private Limited(supra), at paragraph 21, 22, 23 and 24 has held as under: ''21. Section 5-A, which embodies the most important dimension of the rules of natural justice, lays down that any person interested in any land notified under Section 4 (1) may, within 30 days of publication of the notification, submit objection in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land in the locality to the Collector. The Collector is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by any person authorised by him or by pleader. After hearing the objector(s) and making such further inquiry, as he may think necessary, the Collector has to make a report in respect of land notified under Section 4 (1) with his recommendations on the objections and forward the same to the Government along with the record of the proceedings held by him. The Collector can make different reports in respect of different parcels of land proposed to be acquired. 22. Upon receipt of the Collector's report, the appropriate Government is required to take action under Section 6 (1) which lays down that if after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A(2), the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, then a declaration to that effect is required to be made under the signatures of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. This section also envisages making of different declarations from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification issued under Section 4 (1). This section also envisages making of different declarations from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification issued under Section 4 (1). In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6 (1), no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification issued under Section 4 (1), which is published after 24-9-1989 can be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. To put it differently, a declaration is required to be made under Section 6 (1) within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1). 23. In terms of Section 6 (2), every declaration made under Section 6 (1) is required to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality in which the land proposed to be acquired is situated. Of these, at least one must be in the regional language. The Collector is also required to cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality. The declaration to be published under Section 6 (2) must contain the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area or a plan is made in respect of land and the place where such plan can be inspected. Section 6 (3) lays down that the declaration made under Section 6 (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that land is needed for a public purpose. 24. After publication of the declaration under Section 6 (1), the Collector is required to take order from the State Government for the acquisition of land and cause it to be measured and planned (Sections 7 and 8). The next stage is the issue of public notice and individual notice to the persons interested in the land to file their claim for compensation. Section 11 envisages holding of an enquiry into the claim and passing of an award by the Collector who is required to take into consideration the provisions contained in Section 23.'' 29. Thus it is clear that the requirement of consideration of objections and the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the State Government as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act is mandatory and indispensable. Thus it is clear that the requirement of consideration of objections and the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the State Government as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act is mandatory and indispensable. The records referred to herein above would clearly indicate that there has been no compliance of this statutory requirement. 30. In the aforesaid circumstance of the matter, this Court is of the view that the entire process of issuance of final notification is vitiated for non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, the issuance of final notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act cannot be sustained. 31. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the declaration/notification dated 07.08.2013 issued by the respondent-State under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is unsustainable and the same require to be quashed. This Court at this juncture do not see any reason to quash the Preliminary Notification dated 17.07.2012 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . Respondent-State is therefore at liberty to proceed further from the stage as contemplated under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the following: ORDER : 1. Writ petitions are partly allowed. 2. Notification dated 07.08.2013 issued under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the lands, subject matter of these writ petitions is hereby quashed. 3. Respondent-State Government shall take appropriate decision afresh after taking into consideration the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted in terms of Section 5A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with objection statement of the land owners filed under Section 5A (1) Act as well as the version of Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind the requirement of law in this regard. 4. If the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner by the final decision to be taken by the State Government they are at liberty to seek redressal of their grievance in accordance with law.