2020 Supreme(Kar) 772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Ashok G Nijagannavar, J.
Kirloskar Electric Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Department Of Revenue - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 106705 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2020

Headnote:

Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Section 97 - Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 14 and 76M - Companies Act - Urban Land Repeal Act, 1999 - Order for conversion of land to industrial purpose - Violation of principles of natural justice – Quash of order - Whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn there from-in event however conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias administrative action cannot be sustained - Whether 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner is a competent authority to initiate proceedings to terminate grant and to resume land - Whether provisions of Section 95 and 97 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act are applicable - Whether provisions of ULC Act are applicable - Whether Town and Country Planning Act has got overriding effect on KLR Act - Facts leading up to petition are that State Government decided to grant land in favor of petitioner a Company registered under Companies Act which is engaged in manufacturing in electrical motors and generators for establishing a factory – Accordingly on directions of State Government vide its letter and Government Order 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner issued order granting land along with pot-kharab lands measuring village in favor of petitioner as per Annexure-A - Agreement was executed between petitioner as per Annexure-B - 2nd respondent4 Deputy Commissioner passed an order for conversion of land to industrial purpose subject to payment of conversion fee per acre as per Annexure-C – Held, Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 2nd respondent is not a competent authority to initiate proceedings for cancellation or termination of grant and to resume the land - In view of Section 43(7) of Land Revenue Rules respondent No.2 has no authority to terminate grant and resume land to Government - Land Revenue Act ceases to operate once as land comes within corporation limits provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act are not applicable - Per contra learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that when petitioner had taken permission for conversion of lands under Section 95(2) of KLR Act he is required to take sanction for change of land use as provided under Section 97 of KLR Act - 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings in pursuance of Annexure-Q which is the communication issued by State Government - Petitioner is intending to use acres of land for residential purpose by making layout thereby he has violated grant conditions - Under these circumstances Deputy Commissioner is competent to initiate proceedings - In support of said contention she has relied on a decision reported in case of State of Karnataka and others - It is undisputed fact that land were granted for industrial purpose to petitioner company by State Government – Accordingly Agreement came to be executed between petitioner and Government - It is also undisputed fact that on application made by petitioner before Deputy Commissioner for conversion Deputy Commissioner by order granted permission to petitioner for converting use of said land from agriculture to industrial purpose - On payment of full market value of said properties Clause (8) of Agreement as per Annexure-A regarding non-alienation clause was deleted by Deputy Commissioner vide order dated Annexure-C - As per Annexure-D Revised Comprehensive Development Plan lands are included in Corporation Limits - On application made by petitioner present appellant vide order as per Annexure-F permitted change of land use of acres from industrial purpose to residential purpose - In court view where no period of limitation is prescribed action must be taken whether suo motu or on application of parties within a reasonable time – Undoubtedly what is reasonable time would depend on circumstances of each case and purpose of Statute - In case before court are clear that action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time particularly in view of fact that land was transferred several times during this period obviously in faith that it is not encumbered by any rights - Court are of view that merely because legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this Court in case - In view of ratio laid down in aforesaid decisions it is settled law where statute does not provide for limitation provisions of statute must be invoked within a reasonable time - In instant case admittedly lands were granted to petitioner - After lapse of more than years State Government is intending to initiate action on reason of violation of grant conditions - Petitioner has placed relevant records to show that grant conditions are not violated - According to version of respondents if there was any violation of grant conditions legal action could have been initiated within a reasonable time but no such efforts have been done - Without prejudice to aforesaid contentions as per Section 20(2) of ULC Act State Government can withdraw exemption granted after giving an opportunity of hearing to person concerned - In instant case impugned notice is issued by 2nd respondent and not by State Government - Further Section 20(2) of ULC Act is not in existence by virtue of Repealing Act - Hence Section 20(2) cannot be invoked - A reading of Repealing Act leaves no room for doubt that order under ULC Act would cease to operate on passing of Repealing Act - Petition is allowed