Preliminary land acquisition notice is not invalid merely due to prior decree or simultaneous statutory notifications absent proved mala fides.

A preliminary acquisition notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is only an initial step in the statutory process, so it is not vitiated merely because it follows a prior decree in favour of the landowners; absent independent proof of mala fides, colourable exercise of power or collateral purpose, the challenge fails. The Court also held that simultaneous issuance of notifications under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) was not prohibited by the Act and did not by itself invalidate the acquisition notice. The impugned orders were set aside, leaving the landowners to pursue objections in the statutory proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition could succeed at the stage of a preliminary acquisition notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 on the ground of mala fides and prior decree for possession; (ii) whether simultaneous notifications under Section 1(3), Section 3(1) and Section 28(1) of the Act were illegal and invalid.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition could succeed at the stage of a preliminary acquisition notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 on the ground of mala fides and prior decree for possession.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 28 contemplates only an initial notice of intention to acquire, followed by service of notice, consideration of objections, hearing, and only thereafter a declaration if the State is satisfied that acquisition is necessary. A preliminary notification is therefore not the final stage of acquisition. The existence of a prior decree in favour of the landowners did not by itself render the State's statutory action unlawful or mala fide. The record showed that acquisition proceedings were initiated after the decree, but the Court held that this circumstance alone did not establish legal mala fides, colourable exercise of power, or collateral purpose. The owners could raise all objections in the statutory proceedings and, if needed, challenge any final action thereafter.

Conclusion: The challenge to the preliminary notification on the ground of mala fides and prematurity was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether simultaneous notifications under Section 1(3), Section 3(1) and Section 28(1) of the Act were illegal and invalid.

Analysis: Section 1(3) governs commencement of Chapter VII, Section 3(1) enables declaration of an industrial area, and Section 28(1) permits notice of intention to acquire land. The Court held that the Act did not prohibit the State from issuing the relevant notifications contemporaneously, and no statutory bar was shown. The criticism that the notifications were composite or that material regarding industrial expansion was not produced did not furnish a legal basis to quash the preliminary acquisition notice. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had therefore erred in treating the sequence of notifications as fatal to the acquisition process.

Conclusion: The simultaneous issuance of the notifications was not illegal and did not invalidate the acquisition notice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the land acquisition challenge failed at the preliminary stage, while the landowners were left free to raise all available objections in accordance with the statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A preliminary acquisition notification is not vitiated merely because it is issued after an adverse decree or contemporaneously with related statutory notifications, unless mala fides or illegality is independently established on the record.

---