Writ Petition No. 11207 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11207 OF 2020 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. HONEYSOFT TECHNOLOGIES, (HONEYSOFT INDUSTRIES) PROPRIETARY CONCERN REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR: SRI. SYED BADRUDDIN KHADRI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O S.R.S KHADRI, NO.8, 1ST CROSS, 24TH MAIN, II PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. 2. M/S. QUALIBAND TECHNOLOGIES, (FORMERLY PROPRIETARY CONCERN) REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO.8, (OLD NO.8A), 1ST CROSS, 24TH MAIN, II PHASE, J.P NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3. SRI. ZUBAIR MOHAMMED KHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O FAIZ MOHAMMED KHAN, NO.8A, 1ST CROSS, 24TH MAIN, II PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR 4. SRI. F.M. MOINUDDUIN AHMED, S/O F.M. ASIFUDDIN AHMED, R/AT NO.43-B, ROBERTSON ROAD, HAINES MAIN ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU - 560 005. (BY SRI. HEGDE RAMACHANDRA SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) ZONAL OFFICE: KRS ROAD METAGALLY, MYSORE - 570 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) ZONAL OFFICE: KRS ROAD, METAGALLY, MYSORE - 570 016. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) METAGALLY INDUSTRIAL AREA, KRS ROAD (NEAR VIKRANT TYRES), MYSORE - 570 016.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SREENIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 277 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE CASE FROM RESPONDENTS QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS / COMMUNICATION LETTERS DATED 24.02.2020 (IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.1) VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 24.02.2020 (IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.2) VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY R-4 AND CONSEQUENT ORDERS / COMMUNICATIONS LETTER DATED 29.08.2020 (IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.1) VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED 29.08.2020 (IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.2) VIDE ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY R-4 AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i) Call for records of the case from respondents. and orders letters communications ii) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash the impugned in No.K.Ki.Pra.A.Mm./AA/Mi/3060/4901/2019-20 dated 24.02.2020 (in respect of petitioner No.1) vide in Annexure-G No.K.Ki.Pra.A.Mm./AA/Mi/3061/4884/2019-20 dated 24.02.2020 (in respect of petitioner No.2) vide respondent No.4 and Annexure-H letters consequent No.K.Ki.Pra.A.Mm./AA/Mi/3060/1896/2020-21 dated 29.08.2020 (in respect of petitioner No.1) vide Annexure-K and No.K.Ki.Pra.A.Mm./AA/Mi/3061/1897/2020-21 dated 29.08.2020 (in respect of petitioner No.2) vide Annexure-L issued by respondent No.5, as illegal and without authority of law. orders/communications issued by iii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to respondent Nos.3 to 5 to execute and register lease cum sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of schedule property plots /sites allotted to the petitioners and, iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as facts and deemed circumstances of the case, including award of the costs of the proceedings. just and proper the in 2. The petitioners claim to be carrying on business in the field of Software Industry in Bengaluru for the last 15 to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR 16 years. The petitioners have made an application for allotment of Industrial Plots at Mysore, III Phase, Koorgally Industrial area, Mysore, which was considered by the District Level Single Window Clearance Committee in its meeting on 25.01.2007 and approved the allotment of 0.25 acres of Industrial land. Pursuant thereto KIADB on 23.09.2010 allotted Plot No.100-P in favour of 1st petitioner to the extent of 1000 Sq.mtrs. Plot No.100-P of Mysore, III Phase, Koorgally. On a lease-cum-sale basis for a period of 10 years and insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, an extent of 1,012 Sq.mts of land in Plot No.117 of Mysuru III Phase, Koorgally Industrial Area was allotted on similar terms. 3. Though payments were required to be made in the timeframe as prescribed in the said allotment letter, the petitioners failed to make payment of the said amount, resulting in the first respondent/State while issuing notices, called upon the petitioners to make payment of amounts due, by contending that if the payments were not made, the allotment would be cancelled. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR 4. It is only on 19.09.2014, that the petitioners have deposited the balance amount and sought for restoration of the allotment made. In pursuance of which, the allotment was restored and possession of the land bearing plot No.100-P was handed over to the 1st petitioner on 08.04.2015 and plot No. 100-P measuring 1035 sq.mtrs was handed over on 08.05.2015, there being an excess to an extent of 35 sq.mtrs. 5. Insofar as 2nd petitioner is concerned, the possession of the land was handed over and the possession certificate was issued on 08.04.2015. Thereafter, the KIADB addressed letter dated 05.12.2016 and forwarded lease deed to be executed between the parties. The petitioners observing that in the said draft of the lease deed, it was mentioned that there was a period of lease-cum-sale was for 99 years. The petitioners took up the matter with the KIADB contending that the allotment being made for 10 years on lease-cum-sale basis, the same could not have been enhanced unilaterally to a lease-cum-sale basis of 99 years. Since the lease-cum-sale deed was not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR executed, the KIADB vide its letter dated 24.02.2020 at Annexures-G and H terminated the allotment and by subsequent letters at Annexures-K and L called upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the plots, challenging which the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Submission of Sri. R.S.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that by the time possession letter was issued on 08.04.2015, the petitioners had made payment of all the amounts due in terms of allotment made to the petitioners. There is no amount, which is due and payable on the part of petitioners. He contends that execution and registration of lease-cum-sale agreement was delayed on account of the Clause contained in the draft lease agreement forwarded by the KIADB, which indicated the lease-cum-sale period to be 99 years, when the allotment was made for a period 10 years, which resulted in delay in executing lease-cum- sale agreement, which in turn delayed in petitioners obtaining necessary permissions for implementation of the project. As such no fault can be found with the petitioners. Lastly, he submits that even the government - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR has cleared the confusion in that regard inasmuch as the State Government has categorically indicated and relaxed the condition to 10 years for Micro, Medium, and Small Scale Industries upto 2 acres. The petitioners are also falling under the very same category would have been entitled to the benefit of the same, more so when the extent of land, of the petitioners are less than 2 acres as indicated in the said clarification. Thus, he submits that there is delay on the part of the KIADB in executing the lease deed by carrying out correction of lease-cum-sale period. The petitioners cannot therefore be found fault with. 7. Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the KIADB would submit that though the allotment initially was made for 10 years, the government has issued government order directing the KIADB to execute lease- cum-sale agreement for a period of 99 years by collecting due lease rentals year on year basis for the said 99 year. It is only thereafter, after compliance with all requirement that sale deed would be executed. It is in that background, that a draft for lease-cum-sale agreement - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR forwarded to the petitioners indicated 99 years. Though the allotment was for a period of 10 years, he submits that it was for the petitioners to come forwarded and execute a lease-cum-sale agreement for 99 years instead of delaying the matter. Since the delay on the part of the petitioners was for over 5 years, the respondent-KIADB cancelled the allotment on 24.02.2020, since possession having been handed over on 08.04.2015 and no action having been taken by the petitioners in implementation of the project. He therefore, submits that petition is required to be dismissed. 8. Heard, Sri.R.S.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Sreenivas Kumar, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, perused the material on record. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether once an allottee has made payment of the entire amounts under the allotment letter, the KIADB could - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR cancel the allotment of lease-cum-sale agreement, which has been executed by the allottees? 10. The facts are not in dispute, the only dispute is as regards possession having been handed over to the petitioners on 08.04.2015 and the draft lease having been sent on 05.12.2016, whether it could be said that petitioners have delayed in execution of the lease-cum- sale agreement, on the ground that draft lease contained lease period of 99 years, when the allotment was on a lease basis for a period of 10 years. 11. Though submission of Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the KIADB is that a Government Order had been issued, which is binding on the Board under Section 17 of the KIAD Act, 1966, the fact remains that no communication has been addressed by the KIADB to the petitioners informing about the Government Order and the requirement thereof. The petitioners have insisted on a lease-cum-sale agreement were registered in their favour for a period of 10 years, since the allotment made on 23.09.2010 was for a period of 10 years, and as such - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR the same could not have been unilaterally changed without KIADB having informed the petitioners about the change in the policy of the government. 12. Be that as it may, looking at from another angle on 08.04.2015, the petitioners have made payment of the amount though belatedly, this delay in payment has been waived by the KIADB by issuing a possession letter on 08.04.2015 and forwarding a copy of draft lease on 05.12.2016. Thus, the delay if any, on the part of the petitioners in making payment of the monies having been condoned and waived by the KIADB, no further argument could be advanced on such delay. 13. The draft lease-cum-sale agreement was forwarded on 05.12.2016, which contained a lease period of 99 years when allotment was for a period of 10 years. The petitioners corresponded with KIADB calling upon the KIADB to reduce the lease period to 10 years, which was not adequately replied. Finally it is the State Government who issued one more Order on 02.03.2018 and clarified that insofar as micro, medium and small scale industries - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR are concerned, who are seeking to establish a project in an extent of less than 2 acres, a relaxation could be offered in respect of the lease period from 99 years to 10 years. 14. Despite the said clarification having been issued by way of relaxation, the KIADB did not inform the petitioners that the petitioners could come forward and the KIADB would execute a lease-cum-sale agreement for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, it is only in the year, 2020 that KIADB terminated the allotment and called upon the petitioners to hand over possession of the land. The fact that petitioners have made payment of all the amounts due and even the Government has clarified that there is relaxation, which could be offered to allotees like the petitioners, it was but required for the KIADB to come forward and execute a lease deed for a period of 10 years on that day. The same not having been done by KIADB, I am of the considered opinion, that the KIADB could not have held that petitioners’ responsible and cancelled/ terminated the allotment made in their favour. Hence, I answer point raised by holding that there is no default on - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:20145 WP No. 11207 of 2020 HC-KAR the part of the petitioners in not registering the sale deed with lease-cum-sale period for a period of 99 years, the allotment having been made for a period of 10 years, the Government has also clarified that relaxation could be offered for a period of 10 years. 15. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) A Certiorari is issued. Annexure-G dated 24.02.2020, Annexure-H dated 24.02.2020, Annexure-K dated 29.08.2020, Annexure-L dated 29.08.2020 are hereby quashed, c) KIADB/respondent No.3 is directed to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK