(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-B & B1 dated 29.11.2008 and notification dated 27.05.2010 vide Annexure-F issued by respondents.)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari and quash the notifications dated 29.11.2008 (Annexure-B and B-1) and the notification dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure-F). By the said notifications, the area wherein the petitioners' land is situate has been declared the Industrial Area under Section 3(1) and the lands belonging to the petitioners has been notified for acquisition under Section 28 (1) and Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIAD Act for Short) by the State Government for the benefit of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB for Short) for formation of the Somapur Industrial Area.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are brothers and are the absolute owners of the agricultural lands situate at Chandanahosahalli Village, Somapur Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore. The first petitioner is the owner of lands in Sy.Nos.31/1 and 32/1 measuring 28 guntas and 1 acre 15 guntas respectively. The second petitioner is the owner of lands in Sy.Nos.31/2 and 32/2 measuring 29 guntas and 1 acre 15 guntas respectively and the third petitioner is the owner of lands in Sy.Nos.31/3 and 32/3 measuring 28 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment and have developed the same investing their hard earned money and labour. Agriculture is their main avocation and the only source of livelihood for which the said lands are put to use.

3. When that is the position, the first respondent has notified the same for acquisition for the benefit of the second respondent in the manner stated supra by issue of the impugned notifications. Notices were accordingly issued by the third respondent and the petitioners filed their objection on 11.03.2009. It was contended that the land in question is within the Yellow Belt as per the Master Plan of Nelamangala Local Planning Area 2021 issued by BMRDA and is near to the village limits and therefore not available for industrial purpose. The other objections relating to personal difficulties were also expressed. The petitioners state that the third respondent without affording any opportunity and without considering the objections as per law, has proceeded to issue the final notification.

4. While assailing the notifications herein, the petitioners contend that the lands are situate in the Thippagondanahalli Reservoir Catchment Area (TGR for short) and any industrial activity in the said area would pollute the water sources which is meant for supply of drinking water to Bangalore City. Hence, the acquisition for industrial purpose cannot be unmindful of the impact on the environment. Secondly, the petitioners' properties are situate within the extended gramathana limits and it is required for development of the village as it is within 100 meters from the village limits and similar lands are deleted. Thirdly, the properties are shown in the Yellow Zone of the Master Plan which is earmarked for residential purpose and as such notifying the same for industrial purpose is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Lastly, the petitioners being agriculturists have settled in the hamlet for generations and agriculture being their only avocation, they are entitled to retain their lands and use the same for eking out their living.

5. The second and third respondents have filed their objection statement seeking to justify their action and to sustain the notifications which are impugned. The fact that the petitioners are the owners of the lands in question is not disputed. It is stated that in response, the objections dated 06.03.2009 and 11.03.2009 were filed by the petitioners seeking deletion of their lands. The third petitioner appeared for hearing on 12.03.2009. After hearing, spot inspection was conducted and it was found that the land in question was required for industrial development. In view of awarding suitable compensation for the acquired land, by the Government order dated 13.08.2007 provision is made to allot 8,500 sq.ft. of developed area for every acre of land acquired which can be used by the land owners for residential/ commercial/industrial purpose. The objections were overruled by order dated 30.01.2010. Notice has also been issued to the petitioners to handover possession. Insofar as the contention that it is earmarked for different purpose in the Master Plan, it is contended that the legal position enunciated is that the land need not be acquired for specific purpose for which it is earmarked in the Master plan or Zonal plan. Hence, the same would not render the notification invalid. With regard to deletion of certain lands, it is contended that such lands were included in the KRDL Road project and as such they are deleted. Certain other lands were approved by Karnataka Udyoga Mitra and some are built-up areas. The petitioners therefore cannot seek similar treatment is their contention.

6. Though the contention relating to land being situate in TGR Area and that could not have been acquired for industrial purpose has been urged in the amended petition, additional objection statement has not been filed by the respondents adverting to that aspect. However, a memo enclosing the documents to justify the same has been filed. The first respondent has not chosen to file any objection statement.

7. In the light of the above I have heard Sri S.G. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel on behalf of Sri K Krishna, learned counsel for the second and third respondents and perused the petition papers.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the issue raised regarding the impact on the environment namely the drinking water source and the manner in which the same has been addressed by the respondents arises for consideration at the outset and only thereafter the question regarding change of land use pattern from the one mentioned in the Master Plan would arise if need be as they are the larger issues on which challenge is made to the acquisition. Thereafter, the individual grievance made out by the petitioners relating to gramathana and personal hardship would arise for consideration.

9. Though the lands are sought to be acquired for Somapur Industrial Layout, the fact that the entire area falls within the TGR Catchment Area is not in dispute

inasmuch as the layout plan produced by the second and third respondents along with the memo dated 24.09.2012 would pictorially represent the same. The

fact that Thippegondanahalli Reservoir is the drinking water source to the City of Bangalore is also not in dispute. The lands acquired are situate in the catchment area of such drinking water source. In that view, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M.C.Mehta versus Union of India and Others [(2004) 6 SCC 588] [LQ/SC/2004/708] wherein a detailed consideration was made with regard to environment protection and pollution control, ecology and town planning vis-a-vis Industrial activity in relation to the right to hygienic, clean and safe environment. Specific reference to paragraph 40 of the said decision would read as hereunder;

"40. In Virender Gaur and Others versus State of Haryana referring to Principle No.1 of Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment, 1972, this Court observed that right to have living atmosphere congenial to human existence is a right to life. The State has a duty in that behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled sovereign power and to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. Where in the Zonal plan, a land is marked out and reserved for park or recreational purpose, it cannot be allotted for building purpose though housing is a public purpose. Further, it was observed that though the Government has power to give directions, that power should be used only to effectuate and further goals of the approved scheme, Zonal plans, etc. and the land vested under the Scheme or reserved under the plan would not be directed to be used for any other public purposes within the area envisaged thereunder. Dealing with the contention that two decades had passed, it was held that self-destructive argument to put a premium on inaction cannot be accepted."

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board versus C Kenchappa and Others [(2006) 6 SCC 371] [LQ/SC/2006/484 ;] . The respondents No.2 and 3 herein were parties to that proceedings. The Honourable Supreme Court with reference to Articles 21, 48-A and 51A(g) of the Constitution has considered the consequences of environmental degradation and its consequences as also sustainable development and suggested the principles to be adhered and has observed and issued the directions. The said observations and the directions are as follows;

"87. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority:

"Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses."

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

100. The importance and awareness of environment and ecology is becoming so vital and important that we, in our judgment, want the appellant to insist on the conditions emanating from the principle of ‘Sustainable Development’:

(1) We direct that, in future, before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment.

(2) We also direct the appellant to incorporate the condition of allotment to obtain clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board before the land is allotted for development. The said directory condition of allotment of lands be converted into a mandatory condition for all the projects to be sanctioned in future.

101. This has been an interesting judicial pilgrimage for the last four decades. In our opinion, this is a significant contribution of the judiciary in making serious endeavour to preserve and protect ecology and environment in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution.

102. Sustainable use of natural resources should essentially be based on maintaining a balance between development and ecosystem. Coordinated efforts of all concerned would be required to solve the problem of ecological crisis and pollution. Unless we adopt an approach of sustainable use, the problem of environmental degradation cannot be solved.

103. The concept of sustainable development was propounded by the 'World Commission on Environment and Development', which very aptly and comprehensively defined it as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Survival of mankind depends on following the said definition in letter and spirit."

(emphasis supplied)

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi versusState of A.P. &others [(2006) 3 SCC 549] [LQ/SC/2006/146] wherein while considering the preservation and restoration of two historical tanks where similar questions as in the earlier case were considered, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as hereunder;

“75. The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian law by this Court in M.C. Mehta versus Kamal Nath and also in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. versus Radhey Shyam Sahu. In M.C. Mehta, Kuldip Singh J., writing for the majority held: (SCC p.413, para 34)

"34. Our legal system... includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The State as a trustee is under the legal duty to protect the natural resources."

76. The Supreme Court of California, in the case of National Audubon Society versusSuperior Court of Alpine Country, also known as Mono Lake case summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said:

"Thus the public trust is more than an affirmation of state power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering the right only in those rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust."

This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinize such actions of the Government, the Courts must make a distinction between the Government's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources, [Joseph L. Sax "The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Review, Vol.68 No.3 (Jan. 1970) pp. 471-566]. According to Prof. Sax, whose article on this subject is considered to be an authority, three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine [ibid]:

1. the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;

2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent;

3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.

xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx

82. Article 48-A of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Article 51A of the Constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. These two Articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the country but also it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws and further these two articles are to be kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also the various laws enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature.

xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx

89. The set of facts in the present case relates to the preservation of and restoration of status quo ante of two tanks, historical in nature being in existence since the time of Srikrishnadevaraya, The Great, 1500 A.D., where the cry of socially spirited citizens calling for judicial remedy was not considered in the right perspective by the Division bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh despite there being overwhelming evidence of the tanks being in existence and were being put to use not only for irrigation purpose but also as lakes which were furthering percolation to improve the ground water table, thus serving the needs of the people in and around these tanks. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned order, has given precedence to the economic growth by completely ignoring the importance and primacy attached to the protection of environment and protection of valuable and most cherished fresh water resources."

12. The learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 on the other hand with references to the environmental issue raised as an objection to the acquisition would refer to the documents produced along with a memo i.e., a notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules thereunder wherein provision has been made for obtaining Environmental clearance from the Central Government or the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. On reference to clause 2 of the said notification, it is pointed out that the requirement of prior environmental clearance is for the construction work or preparation of land, except for securing the land. In that context, it is contended that subsequent to the acquisition, the respondents have sought environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The presentation made which is dated 09.07.2012 is produced and reference is made to the 111 meeting at MoEF and refers to the requirement of NOC and the compliance which indicates the approval of the Government of Karnataka in the year 2009. The provision for ensuring 20% green belt area in the project site is indicated. It is therefore contended that the clearance has been obtained and there would be no impediment as an environmental issue to proceed with the project. It is his further contention that as directed in C. Kenchappa's case (supra), the condition to obtain consent from the Pollution Control Board will be incorporated in all the allotment orders and it would be incumbent on the industries concerned to comply and adhere to the conditions imposed while granting consent. The Pollution Control Board would thereafter monitor and take action.

13. Having noticed the rival contentions on that aspect and keeping in view the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court which has been noticed supra and the direction issued thereto, it is necessary for me to advert to the further aspects of the matter to determine as to whether the said environmental clearance relied on by the respondents is in conformity with the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, more particularly in a situation where respondent No.2 herein themselves were party to C. Kenchappa's case before the Honourable Supreme Court. In that regard it is also not in dispute that the proposed Somapura Industrial Estate is sought to be planned in the TGR Catchment area. Considering that the TGR built at the confluence of the Arkavathi and Kumudvathi rivers is one of the sources of drinking water to the city of Bangalore and surrounding areas since 1930, the Government of Karnataka by its notification dated 18.11.2003 has placed certain restrictions with regard to the different kinds of activities in the said area by classifying the same into four zones. The notification is extracted herebelow for better understanding and realising the seriousness with which it is issued and the requirement for it to be kept in view by the State Government for the reasons indicated therein.

"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

No.FEE 215 ENV 2000 Karnataka Govt. Secretariat

M.S. Building Bangalore, Dated 18.11.2003

NOTIFICATION

Whereas Tippagondanahalli Reservoir (TGR). built at the confluence of Arkavathi and Kumudvathi rivers is one of the sources of drinking water to the city of Bangalore and the surrounding areas since 1930. Tippagondanahalli Reservoir in normal year supplies up to 125 MLD of water to Bangalore City and in recent years, the inflow to Tippagondanahalli Reservoir has been decreasing. The quality of water supplied by this reservoir has also deteriorated due to the effluent discharge into the reservoir. In view of these facts. BMRDA initiated a study by Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in association with Indian Resources Information and Management Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (IN-RIMT) to ascertain the reasons for reduced inflow of water to Tippagondanahalli Reservoir.

And whereas the study carried out by Indian Space Research Organization in association with Indian Resources Information and Management Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (IN-RIMT) reveals that unplanned development in the catchment area is one of the main reasons for the deteriorating quality and reduced inflow into the reservoir. Increasing urbanization and industrialization in the catchment area has altered the drainage pattern in the catchment areas. This in turn has affected the inflow into the Tippagondanahalli Reservoir. There are number of industries in the catchment area, whose effluents also flow into the Tippagondanahalli Reservoir affecting the quality of water. Underground leachate from untreated effluent and sewage is also affecting the quality of ground water in this area.

And whereas the total extent of Tippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment is 1453 sq.km and covers parts of Doddaballapur, Nelamangala, Devanahalli, Magadi and Bangalore taluks. Tippagondanahalli Reservoir receives inflows from two streams namely Kumudvathi and Arkavathi. This study done by ISRO and In-RIMT, has made several recommendations, to protect and preserve the Tippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment. The recommendations include as follows:

“Formation of a Conservation Zone covering the entire Tippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment and adopting suitable land utilization strategy therein, especially from the point of view of regulating urbanization/industrialization.

Declaring a zone of about 10 km radius around Tippagondanahalli Reservoir as area of protection.

Regulating a buffer of around 2 km on either side of the Arkavathi and Kumudvathi courses (within the catchment), for protecting the Tippagondanahalli Reservoir from further deterioration.

Implementing necessary measures to prevent alteration of drainage course or impediments to the flow of water along the Arkavathi and Kumudvathi rivers.

Checking of the uncontrolled disposal of effluent/sewage into the streams/ surface water bodies within the catchment. Implementing suitable measures for controlling over-exploitation of groundwater in the catchment, implementing proper waste management system and implementing programmes for revival of the tanks in the catchment.”

And whereas in order to ensure improvement in the quantity and quality of inflow of water into Tippagondanahalli Reservoir, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has recommended to regulate the development in the catchment areas in its 145th meeting held on 24.07.2002. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has taken the decision not to accord consent for any industry, as this is bound to change the surface contours and affect the catchment's drainage pattern. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has recommended to the Government that the area identified by ISRO be declared as a sensitive zone under Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and also suggested to constitute a separate Authority for the conservation of Tippagondanahalli catchment area'.

And whereas in a meeting held on 08-07-2003 chaired by the Principal Secretary. Urban Development, it was resolved to protect this ecologically sensitive area. Since the quality and quantity of water supplied from Tippagondanahalli Reservoir will have direct impact on large population of Bangalore and whereas the Government considers it necessary to protect the catchment area of Tippagondanahalli Reservoir to prevent any activity that would lead to contamination of the reservoir.

And whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under section 23 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has delegated the powers vested in it under section 5 of the said Act to the State of Karnataka vide Notification No.8.0.152 (E) dated 10.2.1988.

Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 29 (86) read with Notification No. S.O. 152 (E), dated 10.02.88, the Government of Karnataka having considered it necessary in the public interest hereby issues the following directions in respect of Tippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment areas which are categorized into four zones comprising of areas specified in column (2) of the schedule falling under the corresponding zones specified in column (1) thereof and also specify the nature of restricted or regulated activities in these areas in column (3) and the Authorities responsible for regularization of the activities in column(4).

SCHEDULE

ZoneArea coveredNature ofrestricted/regulated activitiesAuthorities responsible for regulation

(1)(2)(3)(4)

Zone-1EntireTippagondan ahalli Reservoir (TGR) catchment area specified in Annexure to this Notification(a) Regulation and checking of over exploitation of ground water.(b) No fresh leases on licence or mining, quarrying and stone crushers shall be

granted.(c) No person shall dispose solid as well as liquid waste in this area without scientific Processing.(d) To ensure adoption of

rain water harvesting systems in all the new and existing buildings, within six

months from the date

of issue of this order.(e) To promote organic farming including bio-fertilizer and bio-pesticide.Director, Mines and Geology Department1. Department of Urban Development2. Bangalore Water Supply andSewerage Board.3. Nelamangala

Planning Authority.

Secretary, Department of Agriculture/ Horticulture.

Zone-2XXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXX

Zone-3XXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXX

Zone-4XXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXX

(emphasis supplied)

14. A perusal of the same would indicate that the industries which were already in existence was creating the menace and it would also indicate that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has taken a decision not to accord consent for any industry as that is bound to change the surface contours and effect the catchments drainage pattern. Keeping in view the seriousness of the situation to conserve the said area, the validity of the action taken by the respondents herein needs to be considered.

15. From the said notification, the learned counsel for the respondents would refer to the four Zones which have been demarcated and would contend that the restriction indicated therein would alone apply to each of the Zones. In that context, it is contended that the lands which are the subject matter of this petition are located in Zone-I and there is no prohibition for industrial activity.

16. In the light of the said contention, a perusal of the restriction imposed in Zone-I would indicate the nature of activity indicated therein. That in my opinion does not mean that it will not restrict formation of industrial layout. One among the restrictions is the over exploitation of ground water resource, the reason being it is in the catchment area. Such restriction is based on the present status of the land wherein it could be regulated. On the other hand, if an industrial layout is developed and if every industry needs water resource even with regulation there would be over exploitation. Further, the contention that condition would be imposed in the allotment letter and that it would be regulated thereafter on this aspect as well as complying with the requirement by the Pollution Control Board would not be acceptable, more particularly relating to an area regarding which the Pollution Control Board has already expressed serious concern as indicated in the emphasised portion of the Notification extracted above.

17. In fact in light of the notification dated 18.11.2003, these were all aspects which were required to be considered by the State Government before approving the layout and issuing the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIADB Act. As noticed, neither in the objection statement filed by respondents No.2 and 3 any details of such consideration by the Government has been indicated nor has the first respondent filed objection statement or produced any records. The order dated 28.05.2009 which is produced is only an approval under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act which is not relevant for the said purpose. As noticed, the only document relied on this aspect is the presentation made to the Expert Appraisal Committee on 09.07.2012 much after the issue of the declaration of the area as industrial area and acquisition notification on 29.04.2008. The approval of the Government of Karnataka as stated in the presentation made for environment clearance is said to be the approval of 2009 which is under KTCP Act as noticed above. Further, in the said presentation dated 09.07.2012, in the salient features of the site, it is depicted that there is no ecologically sensitive zone though the entire catchment area has been treated as an ecologically ‘sensitive area’ as evident from the emphasised portion of the notification dated 18.11.2003 (supra). The project area indicated Zone wise in the said presentation would include lands in all the Zones except Zone-II. When it is evident that the entire area of the proposed Industrial Layout is within the catchment area of a drinking water source to the City of Bangalore, consideration was necessary to be made by the State Government as to what is so inevitable about the said lands for formation of industrial layout and why not a layout in an area which does not fall within the catchment area. There is no consideration of these aspects before issue of the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIADB Act nor has any material been produced in that regard.

18. In that background, the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of C. Kenchappa (supra) issued to the second defendant herein is categorical to the effect that before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development if they do not impair the ecology and environment. The said exercise as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court has not been complied by the respondents, instead the process of acquisition has been proceeded with as a matter of course exercising the power of eminent domain and subsequent to the acquisition, the environmental clearance is sought, which is not in accordance with the direction. The condition to be incorporated in the allotment to obtain clearance from Pollution Control Broad as directed by Honourable Supreme Court is an additional condition even after the first requirement is complied and will apply to all kind of lands. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 that such condition would be imposed and Pollution Control Board would monitor would not be of avail in the instant facts where the lands are in ecologically sensitive area as resolved on 08.07.2003 and depicted in the notification dated 18.11.2003. The idea cannot be to impair the ecology and environment knowingly and then attempt to regulate the deterioration. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the lands are situate in the catchment area relating to which the Government of Karnataka, taking note of the serious concern expressed by the Pollution Control Board has issued the notification dated 18.11.2003. These aspects were required to be kept in view and considering that the Government had decided to declare the entire catchment area as a ecologically sensitive area, it was required to apply its mind in consultation with the Pollution Control Board keeping in view the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court, before approval was granted and notification was issued to declare it as an industrial area. Certainly, one cannot comprehend that an industrial area and a catchment area for drinking water source can co-exist by mere regulation. Hence, the notifications impugned cannot be sustained insofar as the petitioners' lands are concerned as it is not in dispute that the said lands are in the catchment area.

19. On the aspect relating to the declaration of the area as industrial area despite the same being shown as yellow zone for residential purpose in the Master Plan, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bangalore and Another versus State of Karnataka and Others (ILR 2007 KAR 4891). The learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 apart from seeking to distinguish the same also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Veerabhadraiah versus State of Karnataka (ILR 2010 KAR 5571) and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Singh versus State of U.P. and Others [(1999) 2 SCC 384] [LQ/SC/1998/1162 ;] to contend that the land need not be acquired for the same purpose as indicated in the Master Plan and also contended with regard to the overriding effect of Section 47 of the KIADB Act and further relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd., and Another versus Punjab National Bank and Others [(1990) 4 SCC 406 [LQ/SC/1990/412] that regard]. Since the contentions once again relate to the validity of issue of the notification under Section 3(1) of the KIADB Act and since I have already arrived at a conclusion in thatregard while considering the first aspect, I do not find it necessary to analyse the contentions on that aspect nor would the other questions need consideration when the basis would stand eroded.

20. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petitions are allowed.

(ii) The notifications dated 29.11.2008, both bearing No.C1 461 SPQ 2007, at

Annexure-B and B-1 and the notification dated 27.05.2010 bearing No.531 SPQ 2009

at Annexure-F to the writ petitions stand quashed insofar as the petitioners' lands are concerned.

(iii) Parties to bear their own costs.