Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Kar) 1300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
B.P. Venkataswamy Reddy S/o Chikka Pilla Reddy —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka rep. by The Principal Secreatary to The Department of Commerce and Industries, The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and Prudential Housing and Infrastructure Development Ltd. —Respondent
AND
Papaiah S/o Late Muniyappa, B.P. Papanna Reddy S/o Late Chikka Pilla Reddy, A.R. Ashwathanarayana Reddy S/o Late A.V. Ramaiah Reddy rep. by his P.A. Holder Sri Nirmal Bafna, Managing Director Ansu Builder Pvt. Ltd. and Mangala Enterprises rep by its Managing Partner Sri Anurag Jain —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka reptd by The Chief Secretary and others —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23084 of 2005 A/W MISC.W. 571 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 3252 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 10933 of 2007
Decided on : 13-12-2010

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Vivek Holla, Holla and Hollain, Joshua H. Samuel, Cariappa and Co., M V. Vedachala, K. Srinivasa Gowda, for the Appellant
Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, A.G., Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA, Basavaraj V. Sabarad, C.N. Raghunath, L.S. Venkatakrishna, K. Srinivasa Gowda, M.V. Vedachala, Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA, P. V. Chandrashekhar, Shevagoor, Kamath Law Associates, Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Holla and Holla, for the Respondent

The Court held that the acquisition of land for the benefit of the Petitioners was not a proper or legal proceeding, as statutory powers were sought to be virtually misused or misutilized for the benefit of private individuals/family in the name of public purpose.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIES (FACILITATION) ACT, 2002 - KIADB ACT, 1966 - ACQUISITION OF LAND - MANDAMUS - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - PUBLIC PURPOSE - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION - QUASHING OF NOTIFICATION - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners, a limited company and a shareholder in the first petition-company, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction directing the second Respondent, Karnataka Udyog Mitra, to issue a final notification wider Section 28 (4) of the KIADB Act 1961 for acquisition of lands bearing Sy. No. 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34, situated in Ibbalur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring about 50 acres (schedule lands). The Petitioners claimed to be the beneficiary of certain acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government under the provisions of the KIADB Act, 1966. They also relied upon the principles of promissory estoppel for seeking relief as per the prayer.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Petitioners did not have a statutory right to petition the Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Court found that the acquisition of land for the benefit of the Petitioners was not a proper or legal proceeding, as statutory powers were sought to be virtually misused or misutilized for the benefit of private individuals/family in the name of public purpose. The Court also held that the preliminary notification could not be allowed to stand indefinitely and quashed it by issuing a writ of certiorari.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners had a statutory right to petition the Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus? 2. Whether the acquisition of land for the benefit of the Petitioners was a proper or legal proceeding? 3. Whether the preliminary notification could be allowed to stand indefinitely?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Petitioners did not have a statutory right to petition the Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus because the statutory provisions did not enable the state to embark upon an acquisition of present nature in favor of private individuals like the Petitioners and on the other hand it will only be an exercise in futility. 2. The Court found that the acquisition of land for the benefit of the Petitioners was not a proper or legal proceeding, as statutory powers were sought to be virtually misused or misutilized for the benefit of private individuals/family in the name of public purpose. 3. The Court held that the preliminary notification could not be allowed to stand indefinitely and quashed it by issuing a writ of certiorari.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the Petitioners, in favor of each of the Respondents 1 to 17. The Court also allowed in part WP No 10933 of 2007 and WP No 3252 of 2006 and quashed the preliminary notification impugned by issuing a writ of certiorari, with costs in favor of the Petitioners against the Respondents.

ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—: WP No 23084 OF 2005:

1. This writ petition by two persons, first Petitioner is a limited company and the second Petitioner claims to be a shareholder in the first petition-company.

2. The averments in para-1 of the writ petition give a better description of the Petitioners and read as under:

1. The first Petitioner is a subsidiary of Puravankara Projects Ltd., which has developed over 5 million sq.ft. of built up space and have necessary infrastructure and expertise for setting up of I.T. infrastructure development projects. There is a great demand for I.T. infrastructure development projects from Indian and foreign companies who want to set up software / hardware manufacturing units, business processing outsource companies, IT enabled service companies etc., in Bangalore which is the Silicon Valley of India. In order to enable them to set up their base in Bangalore, necessary infrastructures like buildings with modern support systems, technology parks and townships etc., are require. The second Petitioner is the share holder of the first Petitioner company.

3. It is claimed that the Petitioners have necessary expertise and entrepreneurial ability and wherewithal to set up a technological park and township for establishment of trade centre and with this equipment, had filed an application on 4-7-2001 before the Karnataka Udyog Mitra, which is described as the nodal agency, which operates at the state level and district industries centres at the districts level, and giving this status in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 [for short, the facilitation Act].

4. It is also the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners had identified about 50 acres of land comprised in Sy Nos 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34 of lblur village, Begur hobli, Bangalore south taluk for establishment of a trade centre and with the object of acquiring these lands, had availed the services of Udyoga Mitra by making the application as referred to above.

5. It is also the version of the Petitioners that the application was processed by high level committee headed by not less than the chief minister of the state at its meeting held on 23-7-2003, wherein, it appears, several other projects like the one proposed to be executed by the Petitioners, were also examined by the high level committee and the Petitioners have appended to the writ petition a copy of the proceedings of the high level committee that took place on 23-7-2003 under the chairmanship of the then chief minister Sri S M Krishna with the following persons as members, who are all ministers and senior bureaucrats:

S M Krishna

Hon'ble Chief Minister

Government o/Karnataka

Chairman

R V. Deshpande

Hon'ble Minister for

Large & Medium Industries

Vice Chairman

V. S Koujalgi

Hon'ble Minister for

Agriculture

Member

M Shivanna

Hon'ble Minister for

Horticulture

Member

T John

Hon'ble Minister of State

for Infrastructure

Development

Member

D B Inamdar

Hon'ble Minister of State

for Tourism and

Information Technology

Member

Subir Hari Singh

Principal Secretary to

Government, Commerce &

Industries Dept

Member

A K Agarwal

Principal Secretary to

Government, Agriculture

and Horticulture

Department

Member

N Gokulram

Principal Secretary to

Government

Forest, Ecology &

Environment Dept.

Member

10)

T Y Nayaz Ahmed

Principal Secretary to

Government

Labour Department

Member

11)

S Krishna Kumar

Principal Secretary to

Government,

Infrastructure Development

Department

Member

12)

P Kotilingangoud

Chairman & Managing

Director, Karnataka State

Industrial Investment and

Development Corporation

Member

13)

Vivek Kulkarni

Secretary

Information Technology

Department

Member

14)

G Gurucharan

Secretary to Government

Represented Principal

Secretary, Finance

Department

Member

15)

K N Shrivastava

Managing Director

KPTCL

Member

16)

S J Channabasappa

Secretary to Government

Represented Principal

Secretary, Water Resources

Department

Member

17)

Ashok Kumar C Manoli

Commissioner of

Commercial Taxes

Member

18)

C S Kedar

Secretary to Go

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(Kar) 1300

The Court held that the acquisition of land for the benefit of the Petitioners was not a proper or legal proceeding, as statutory powers were sought to be virtually misused or misutilized for the benefit of private individuals/family in the name of public purpose.

Cases Referred (3)