SLAO Must Reconsider Acquisition Objections Without Being Influenced by the Writ Court’s Interpretation of Circulars.

The appellants challenged acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, pursuant to notifications dated 15 March 2024 and 3 October 2024.

The Single Judge declined to quash the preliminary notification but found that the objections to acquisition had not been properly considered and remitted the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to continue from the Section 28(3) stage.

The appellants also challenged the acquisition on the basis of two Government circulars, a challenge rejected by the Single Judge.

The parties asked that this appeal be disposed of on terms similar to those adopted in W.A. No. 657 of 2026.

1. Whether the SLAO should reconsider the objections already filed, and any additional objections, without being influenced by the Single Judge’s interpretation of the two circulars.

2. Whether the appeal should be disposed of on terms similar to those in W.A. No. 657 of 2026.

The acquisition proceedings arose under Sections 28(1), 28(3), and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

The Single Judge had held that the objections were not properly considered and remitted the matter for further proceedings, reflecting the requirement that objections be considered in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.

The Division Bench did not decide the substantive interpretation of the two circulars; it directed that the SLAO reconsider the objections independently and in accordance with law.

The parties requested a disposition on the same terms as W.A. No. 657 of 2026, in which the SLAO was directed to consider the objections without being influenced by the Single Judge’s interpretation of the circulars.

The Court accepted that approach, leaving the remand in place while ensuring that the SLAO would independently consider the objections under the applicable law.

It did not determine the merits of the circulars’ interpretation.

The SLAO was directed to consider the objections already filed, together with any additional objections filed by the appellants, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the Single Judge’s interpretation of the two circulars.

The Court requested the SLAO to pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within twelve weeks.

The pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.