Writ Petition No. 32 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
® - 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2017 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: M/S FIRST FACE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, OFFICE AT NO. 50, 17TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT MR. V SUDHAMA. (BY SRI. H S DWARAKANATH .,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AT NO. 14/3, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONAL OFFICE, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALORE - 575 011. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. B B PATIL .,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-A THE ORDER PASSED BY R-2 DATED 19.12.2016 BY WHICH AN ORDER IS PASSED DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO SURENDER AND DELIVER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE ON OR BEFORE 30.12.2016 AND THREATENING TO FORCIBLY TAKE POSSESSION AND RESUME THE LAND AND ALSO FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-R1 BEING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER DATED 02.12.2016 AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION AND DECLATION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Annexure- A, the order passed by the R2 dated 19.12.2016 bearing reference No. IADB/ALLOT/MNG/EPIP/ BLOCK NO.11(P)/ 1467/2016-17 by which an order is passed directing the petitioner to surrender and deliver possession of the property described in the Schedule on or before 30.12.2016 and threating to forcibly take possession and resume the land and also for a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-R1 being the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member dated 02.12.2016 and for such other order, direction and declaration as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Petitioner was allotted 2 acres of land in Block 4-Part 2 and 5-Part 2 E.P.I.P. Ganjimatt Mangalore Industrial Area vide allotment letter dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 11.10.2006. The petitioner made payment of the due amounts on 19.06.2008 on which date possession certificate was issued, thereafter on 11.08.2008 an agreement of lease was executed. 3. The petitioner claims that the petitioner could not carry out the works in the said property, since the same was not suitable as such the petitioner sought for alternate land to be allotted on 08.02.2012. In pursuance thereof, an alternate site came to be allotted on 21.06.2012 and a fresh Possession Certificate came to be issued on 07.07.2012 and a supplementary Agreement came to be entered into on 01.08.2012. 4. The possession of the substituted property having been given on 07.07.2012, the petitioner contends that the said property was also not suitable and there was no development activity which had taken place and as such the petitioner could not implement the project. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 5. The respondent issued notices under Section 34 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “KIAD Act”), which was replied to by the petitioner. Subsequently, notice under Section 34-B(1) and 34-B(2) of the KIAD Act came to be issued, which was also replied to by the petitioner which resulted in the impugned order dated 02.12.2016 and Annexure-R1 being passed. 6.
Legal Reasoning
The submission of Sri.H.S.Dwarkanath., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that; 6.1. In the said impugned order dated 02.12.2016, there is no reference made of the contentions of the petitioner that the land was not suitable for development. He relies on the earlier allotment made where the land was not suitable resulting in alternate land being allotted. The alternate land also not being suitable for development, the petitioner could not carry on the development activities. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 6.2. The aspect of whether the property was suitable for development and the property had all the facilities was required to be established by the KIADB at the time of the possession, the impugned order does not indicate the consideration of the said contentions and as such he submits that there is no application of mind by the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member of the KIADB in passing orders under Section 35-B(3) and 35-B(4) of the KIAD Act directing the resumption of possession under Section 35-B(5) of the KIAD Act. 7. The submission of Sri.B.B.Patil., learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 is that; 7.1. The second allotment made to the petitioner was at the petitioner's request that the same is developed. As such, the question of the petitioner claiming that the said land has not been developed would not at all arise, and it is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 for that reason that the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member have not considered that aspect. 8. Heard Sri.H.S.Dwarakanath., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.B.B.Patil., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers. 9. The power and authority which is exercised under Section 34-B by the KIAD Act is a draconian right in as much as the said power once exercised would result in deprivation of an allotment made to an allottee and resumption of possession. 10. In the present case, the allottee has made payment of all the due amounts and a lease-cum-sale agreement had been entered into. The allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner has not developed the property and utilized the property. The petitioner contended that the property was not suitable for development, and it is for that reason that the petitioner could not develop the property. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 11. These issues having arisen in the year 2016, now in the year 2025 to ascertain whether it is developed or not by this Court would not be possible. It was for the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member to have on the basis of the records available with the KIADB considered these aspects, whether the development works had been carried out, whether the property was suitable for the petitioner to implement the project and passed a reasoned order. The same not having been done, an order of resumption has been passed on the sole ground that the petitioner has not implemented the project, and it appears that the petitioner is not interested in implementing the project. The said finding without ascertaining the suitability of the land for development, in my considered opinion cannot be sustained. 12. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter would have to be remited to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 fresh consideration on the basis of the available documents with the KIADB, liberty being reserved to the petitioner to place such documents as are available with the petitioner for consideration to establish that there is no development which had taken place entitling the petitioner to implement its project as on the date on which the notice was issued. 13. General directions: 13.1. This is not a stray case, there are many cases which are coming up before this Court where steps are taken under Section 34B of the KIAD Act and the off repeated contention of the allottee is that there is no development of the industrial layout. The facilities are not available at the said industrial layout and it is for that reason that the allottee could not develop the property by implementing the project. 13.2. The lands which are allotted to the allottees are after acquiring the same in most cases from - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 farmers and thereafter making available the land for non-agriculture industrial purposes. Firstly, there is a change in the use of the land from agriculture to industrial. Secondly, land is forcibly acquired by the State for establishment of industry thereby depriving the landowner of the land. 13.3. The aspect of an allottee of the land not implementing the project therefore assumes serious consequences and if the allottee is not interested in developing the land, then suitable action and immediate action is required to be taken under Section 34B of the KIAD Act which was introduced by way of an amendment. 13.4. Whenever matters of this nature come up before the Court, this Court is unable to assess from the documents on record whether as on the date of the allotment made and/or as on the date on which possession was handed over, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 the property was suitable for implementation of the project or not. 13.5. This aspect could be well addressed by the KIADB by enclosing along with the possession certificate/letter, the geotagged photograph with date and time stamp indicating the status of the land, the geotagged photographs of the entire layout and the common facility therein with date and time stamp, which would necessarily have to be signed by the allottee as concurrence with the existing situation on the ground. 13.6. These photographs as also the permissions for formation of road, laying of sanitary pipes, water connections and electricity connection could also be made part of the agreement of lease-cum-sale as and when executed, so that there is no dispute raised in this regard by an unscrupulous allottee at a later point of time. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 13.7. The concerned documents could also be uploaded on the website of KIADB as regards each of the industrial area/industrial township so that those documents would be available for public consumption, these documents being uploaded with date and time stamp. 13.8. The Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member of the KIADB is directed to consider the above formulate a suitable mechanism by considering the above aspects and any other aspect that the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member and its team may deem fit to include to avoid such an occurrence in future. A detailed project report to be filed within 6 weeks from today. 14. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; i. ii.
Decision
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 02.12.2016 at Annexure-R1 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Chief - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15829 WP No. 32 of 2017 Executive Officer and Executive Member for fresh consideration in terms of the above observation. iii. The petitioner is permitted to submit any other documents that the petitioner wishes to do so within a period of 30 days from today. iv. In the event of the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member relying upon any other document in possession of KIADB. Copies thereof to be made available to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to make submissions on such documents. v. The Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible. vi. Though the above petition is disposed of, re-list on 26.6.2025 for filing of the detailed project report. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16