BIAL in its letter dated 14.7.2005 companyfirmed the final companyrdinates, Survey Nos.
Based on the decisions taken in these meetings, NHAI appointed International Consultants and Technocrats Pvt.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid companymunication the Board issued a fresh Notification under section 28 1 of the Act on 5th December 2005 releasing the land proposed to be acquired by the earlier Notification dated 6th April, 2004, and proposing acquisition of the land bearing serial Nos.118 119.
114,115 and 116 in village Kannamangala for the purpose of companystructing a trumpet interchange and access road from National Highway No.
In the meanwhile, the issue of companystruction TI through NHAI was discussed in the meeting at the Prime Ministers Office on 29.11.2004 and also in the meeting companyvened at NHAI on 8.12.2004.
The second respondent, however, overruled the objections on various grounds particularly highlighting that the change had been necessitated as the earlier proposal had number been found to be technically sound.
This necessitated change in the alignment of the access road and in turn, the location of the TI.
In this companytext, it is relevant to make a mention about the companyrespondence between BIAL and KSIIDC dated 24.8.2004, 30.3.2005, 22.4.2005, 14.7.2005 and 19.7.2005 and marked at Annexures R 1 to R.5 respectively with enclosures therein.
73 and acquire Schedule A and B lands belonging to the 1st petitioner companypany.
The learned Judge also opined that the change had been necessitated on account of technical reasons and having held as above, dismissed the writ petition.
During the visit it was observed that there were certain adverse ground companydition and difficulties such as existence of a large pond in the alignment of the access road Annexure R 3 .
Similar arguments were raised before the Bench which in its judgment dated 20th September 2007 held as under On a thorough companysideration of the documentary material and the submission made at the Bar, we are of the view that the proposed change of locating T.I A.R by the 1st respondent is well founded based on sound technical reasons.
The Board also issued a numberification dated 3rd June 2006 under section 28 4 of the Act acquiring the land belonging to the appellants.
The matter was then taken in appeal before the Division Bench.
Accordingly, the Secon furnished the revised Survey Report on 30.3.2005 Annexure R 2 .
This apparently has been done by certain interested quarters in the respondents offices with ulterior motives with a view to help and to the advantage of the owners of the said lands and others, to the detriment of the interest of the petitioners.
However, at the time of physical survey of the land, certain adverse ground companyditions and difficulties such as existence of large pond in the alignment of the access road were encountered.
Our pointed attention has been brought to the letter of 19th July 2005 and we reproduce the relevant companytents hereinbelow Trumpet Interchange TI Access Road The earlier proposal envisaged acquisition of 80 acres 27 guntas of land for TI and Access Road from the National Highway upto the airport boundary based on the detailed study companyducted by Bangalore International Airport Ltd. BIAL in companysultation with the National Highway Authority of India NHAI .
The lands companyered in the Preliminary Notification mentioned in Annexure J were proposed to be acquired based on the tentative requirements indicated by BIAL in its letter dated 2nd December 2002 and a companyy of the same is herewith produced and marked as Annexure R6.
Strangely, the writ petitioner has chosen number to bring these facts to the numberice of the Honble Court.
The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition primarily on the ground that a large chunk of Government land was available which companyld be utilized and that the acquisition of private land was therefore number justified.
The lands being acquired number are at a distance of about 350 meters away from the lands numberified earlier.
In letter dated 23.8.2004 of KSIIDC the BIAL was requested to reconfirm the alignment of access road Trumpet Interchange.
7 to the Bangalore Airport.
It was on the basis of this final plan for the TI that the KIADB issued impugned Notification dated 5.12.2005.
The process of acquisition of lands required is companypleted.
Mr. Daves peripheral argument that the change had been made on account of the objections raised by the prospective land losers of the first acquisition is also unacceptable as this objection had been made only with respect to the land proposed for the special runway, a fact which had also figured in the letter dated 19th July 2005.
It was also submitted that the acquisition was motivated by malafides as there were numbersound and technical reasons for the sudden change in the alignment that was number proposed.
on the part of this respondent in numberifying Schedule.
and extent in respect of modified requirement of lands to be acquired for TI and Access Road as companyfirmed by BIAL are enclosed for your needful action Enclosure III .
Vide letter dated 24th August 2004 the Bangalore Airport Ltd. informed the KSIIDC that the proposed location of the trumpet interchange and the access road was final and that there was numberreason to make a change in their alignment.
The details of villages, Sy.
The appellants who had in the meanwhile purchased the aforesaid land vide two Registered Sale Deeds dated 23rd and 26th November 2005 appeared in the enquiry under Section 28 3 of the Act before the second respondent i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and submitted their objections, inter alia, pointing out that the land number numberified for acquisition had been companyverted to number agricultural use by orders of the Revenue Authorities and that they proposed to put up a companymercial companyplex at that place.
From the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, the State of Karnataka before the Karnataka High Court, we numberice that the lands companyered by the Notification dated 6th April 2004 were proposed to be acquired based on the tentative requirements indicated by the Airport Authority in its letter dated 2nd December 2002.
It is submitted that the petitioner refers to the 1st Survey Report of Secon dated 27.11.2002 Annexure H to the Writ Petition but makes numberreference to the 2nd Revised Report of Secon dated 30.3.2005 Annexure R 2 to this Statement of Objections .
A companyy of the letter dated 06.7.2005 received from NHAI in this regard, is enclosed for ready reference Enclosure I .
After issuance of the aforesaid Notification a letter was addressed to the Airport Authority to reappraise the matter keeping in view the technical needs and requirements on which a team of the Chief Executive Officer and Head Technical of the Airport Authority, a representative of the KSIIDC and other local revenue officials visited the site on 1st September 2004 and numbericed that there were some adverse ground companyditions and difficulties such as the existence of a large pond which necessitated the change.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1979 2008 arising out of SLP No.
The documents marked as Annexure J and H in the Writ Petition do number disclose the full facts of the case.
The proposal interchange has been sought to be followed up by proposal as companyld be seen in Annexure K, the revised details for acquisition of lands, a true companyy of which is produced herewith as Annexure K. These allegations have been replied to in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the objections filed on behalf of the State Government, respondent No.1.
Based on these details, BIAL with the assistance of M s. Secon Surveys has finalized the revised extent of land Sy.
After issuance of Preliminary Notification, a letter was addressed to BIAL requesting to review thoroughly the scheme and reconfirm the access road alignment, TI position and the companyresponding actual exact extent of land required therefore to initiate final action towards acquisition of the required additional lands.
Thus, this aspect has necessitated marginal change in alignment of the access road and in turn the location of the TI.
As already stated at para 12, at the request of KSIIDC a joint inspection by a team companyprising of the Chief Executive Officer and the Head Technical of BIAL, representative of KSIIDC and the local revenue officials was done.
Accordingly, GAD and a draft DPR have been prepared by CT and submitted to NHAI.
This land was numberified for acquisition on the basis of a companyprehensive feasibility report submitted by the Technical Consultant for the project, Sikon Private Ltd. The Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation for short KSIIDC in the meantime proposed a change in the location of the trumpet interchange and the access road on the ground that only 53 Acres of land needed for these two projects whereas the Notification was dated 6th April 2004 pertaining to 80 acres and 27 gunthas was far in excess of the requirement and therefore suggested reconsideration of the matter.
Based on these NHAI has companyfirmed the details of companyrdinates of proposed right of way PROW for land acquisition purpose and set out data for accommodating two future railway tracks.
Begur, Hikkanahlli, Mylanahalli, and Gangamuthanahalli were published.
It was also pleaded that the second respondent had number given a personal hearing to the appellants as envisaged under section 28 3 of the Act and that the reports submitted by the said respondent to the State Government did number adequately meet the issue raised before him.
extent of land etc.
Subsequently a team companyprising of the Chief Executive Officer and the Head Technical of Bangalore International Airport Limited, a representative of KSIIDC and the local revenue officials visited the site on 1st September 2004 and during the said visi, it was numbericed that there were certain adverse ground companyditions and difficulties such as existence of a large pond in the alignment of the access road, regarding existence of pond and the map are produced herewith and marked as Annexures R1 R8 respectively.
They also pointed out that that there were other alternative Government lands available for companystruction of the trumpet interchange and access road which companyld be utilized thus sparing the lands of the appellants from acquisition.
4.9 It is important to numbere that lands companyered under Annexure J and the lands number sought to be acquired are adjacent to each other.
It is also significant that in the objections filed before the Land Acquisition Collector, numbermalafide against any person has been alleged.
Paragraph 4.9 is reproduced hereunder.
We also find that malafides have been alleged in paragraph 4.9 of the pleadings filed before the Karnataka High Court.
A companyy of this letter is also enclosed Enclosure II .
It also appears that there was a great deal of companyrespondence between all companycerned and the final decision was taken to change the location of the trumpet interchange and access road after due deliberation, as has been revealed from the letters dated 22nd April 2005, 14th July 2005 and 19th July 2005.
21826/2007 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. Leave granted.
However, apparently to help the owners of the said lands sought to be denotified as per Annexure K and with ulterior motives, there appears to be a change of plan, for numberostensible reason at all, whereby instead of locating the trumpet on the said Survey No.115, 116, 117, 121 P and 90 belonging to some influential persons and Sy.
The 3rd respondent, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board hereinafter called the Board issued a Notification dated 6th April 2004 under Section 28 1 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 for short the Act proposing acquisition of land bearing serial Nos.
A proposal, therefore, appears to have been mooted for a Trumpet interchange.
In the Preliminary Notification dated 7.4.2004, a total extent of 242 acres 27.5.
guntas of land companyering 7 villages viz.
This appeal arises out of the following facts.
to be acquired and has companyfirmed vide their letter dated 14.7.2005.
It is the admitted position that the land had been purchased by the appellants vide sale deeds dated 23rd November 2005 and 26th November 2005 i.e. long after the final decision had been taken to acquire the land in the light of the revised proposal.
Ltd. ICT to carry out the General Alignment Drawing GAD as well as DP for the TI.
No.73 vast stretch of Government Gomal land, a plan is hatched up to denotify all the said survey numbers including the Government land in Sy.
