M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 13-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 948 
A 
MIS. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. &-ANR. 
>---
!-
• 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1979 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 13, 2008 
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Kamataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966; 
1 
S. 28(1) and (3): 
c 
Acquisition of land for execution of a construction project 
- Change in location _of project - Fresh Notification ~Acquisition 
of land belonging to appellants - Challenge to - Dismissed by 
Single Judge_ of the High Court - Affirmed by Division Bench 
of the High Court - Correctness of - Held: Correct - Decision 
D 
I 
. 
for change in the .location of the project was taken by the 
authorities after due deliberation and keeping into 
consideration necessities thereof - The land in que$lion 
>--· 
purchased by the appellants long afler the final decision to 
acquire the land was taken -: Malafides have been alleged by 
E the appellants in the pleadings before the High Court without 
any factual basis - Mere allegation of malafides not enough 
and cogent evidence thereof must be furnished - Opportunity 
of effective personal hearing in terms of S. 28(3) of the Act was 
) 
given to them before final notification was issued and 
F appellants had exercised their rights thereunder - Both, the 
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have 
~ 
given categorical finding in connection thereof - Supreme 
Court found no reason to differ therefrom. 
Acquisition of land/property - Quashing of - Held: An 
G acquisition for the benefit of public at large not to be quashed 
unless extra ordinary reasons exist. 
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, 
respondent No.3, issued a Notification uls.28 of the 
). 
H 
948 
! 
M/S. GIRIAS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE 
949 
OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, A 
-... 
proposing acquisition of certain land for the purpose of 
constructing a 'trumpet interchange' and 'across road' 
from National Highway to Bangalore Airport. Later, the 
Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development 
Corporation proposed a change in the location of the said B 
project reducing the requirement of the land for the said 
purpose. Consequently, the Board issued a fresh 
Notification for acquisition of the land in the changed 
location. In the meantime, appellants allegedly purchased 
the land in question and objected the acquisition c 
proceedings on the ground that the land in question had 
been converted to non-agricultural use in terms of order 
of Revenue authorities; and that they proposed to put up 
a commercial complex on the land. The authority 
overruled the objections. Appellants challenged the D 
acquisition proceedings ~y filing a writ petition before the 
.../ 
High Court on grounds of malafides etc. Single Judge of 
-I 
the High Court found that the allegation of malafides had 
not been made out and that the change in the location of 
the land was necessitated on account of technical E 
reasons, hence, dismissed the petition. Appeal filed 
thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench of the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended. that the action of the F 
. 
respondents in changing the location of the interchange 
~ 
and the access road which had,ied to the acquisition of 
the appellants' land" was actuated by malafides and the 
explanation offered by them, that this had been 
necessitated on account of technical reasons, was an 
G 
after thought and not based on the record; that the 
personal hearing envisaged under section 28(3) of the Act 
was akin to a hearing under Section 5-A of the Land 
....i. 
Acquisition Act, 1894; and that in the absence of any such 
effective hearing the acquisition was liable to fail. 
'-
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
J 
A 
Respondents submitted that the allegations of 
malafide were on the face of it unacceptable for the simple 
:;. 
reason that the proposal to change the alignment of the 
trumpet interchange and access road had been initiated 
after a complete technical re-survey and long before the 
B date of the sales in favour of the appellants and that in 
any case, allegations of malafides had to be leveled 
against some identified individual(s) who had to be 
impleaded as a party to the litigation failing which the court 
was precluded from examining this plea; and that the 
c personal hearing envisaged under Section 28(3) had 
indeed been given and as a token of this hearin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.