Karnataka High Court
M/S Mittal Steel Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 47310 OF 2015 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MITTAL STEEL LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT WHITEFILED ROAD
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 048
REPRENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. I.S. MITTAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. ARUN KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.V.SUNDARARAMAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOARD
GOVERNEMTN OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TOWN PLANNING MEMBER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECTUVE MEMBER
KIADB HEAD OFFICE, 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.R. ROOPA, HCGP FOR R-1)
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER
ISSUED BY THE R-2 LETTER DATED: 03.03.2014 VIDE ANN-A
AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such/other writ, order or such/other writ, order or direction to quash the letter issued by the respondent No.2 letter dated 03.03.2014 bearing No.BDA/NYoS/CLU-315/2013-
14/6612/2013-14 at Annexure-A;
1A. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction to quash letter dated July 12, 2019 bearing No.NAI 18 BEASE 2014 produced at Annexure-H.
2. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to utilise the schedule property for the purpose as specified in the Revised Master Plan 2015 namely for Commercial - Business and for such uses as is permissible under the Zoning Regulation 2007 for Commercial - Business issued by the Respondent No.2 without insisting on any No Objection Certificate from the Respondent No.3 or any other statutory authority.
32A. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.2 to permit change of land use from Industrial to Commercial, in the event the Respondent No.2 were to contend that the land use continues to be industrial in nature, in terms of Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (prior to its amendment in the year 2015 by Act No.38 of 2015)
3. Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity."
2. Heard Sri.K.Arun Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Smt.K.R.Roopa, learned HCGP for respondent - State, Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2-BDA and Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - KIADB and perused the material on record.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject property bearing Plot No.8 and Part of 9 in Dyvasandra Village, 4 Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District measuring 6 acres 22 guntas was acquired by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 11.06.1996 executed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.3-KIADB. In terms of the Master Plan 2015 (RMP 2015) which came into effect on 25.06.2007, the schedule property has been classified for "Commercial-Business", which also permits usage of the schedule property for residential purposes as per the Zoning Regulations. It is contended that the sale deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner was unconditional and absolute and the petitioner was entitled to use the schedule property in accordance with RMP 2015 and Zoning Regulations which permitted usage of the property for commercial - Business as well as residential purposes without obtaining any consent / change of land use / no objection from the respondent No.2-BDA.
4. It is contended that the petitioner submitted a letter dated 03.03.2014 to respondent No.2 seeking change of land use under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and 5 Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KTCP Act' for short). Along with the application, petitioner enclosed copies of all relevant documents including RMP 2015 as well as Zoning Regulations, in which, the schedule property is classified as Commercial - Business. In the said letter, petitioner pointed out that though the schedule property was permitted to be used for commercial - business purposes as well as residential purpose as per RMP 2015 and Zonal Regulations, the petitioner had submitted the said letter by way of abundant caution.
5. In response to the aforesaid letter of the petitioner, BDA issued the impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 03.03.2014 intimating the petitioner that his request was kept pending in view of the Resolution dated 22.10.2013 passed by the BDA and the Report dated 02.02.2014 submitted to the State Government. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government issued the impugned letter at Annexure-H dated 12.07.2019 to the effect that as per the Karnataka Industrial Policy 2014-19, the lands acquired by the KIADB would not be permitted to 6 be used for non-industrial purposes even after execution of the sale deed or lease deed.
6. Learned Senior counsel while reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition submitted that a perusal of the sale deed dated 11.06.1996 at Annexure-B will indicate that the KIADB has sold, transferred and conveyed the schedule property absolutely in favour of the petitioner without imposing any conditions upon the schedule property with regard to usage of the schedule property only for industrial purposes after the same had been conveyed absolutely in favour of the petitioner. Further, as per RMP 2015 and Zoning Regulations, schedule property is classified for commercial-Business and residential purposes. It is further contended that Section 76M of the KTCP Act has an overriding effect over all other laws and the same supercedes and overrides not only the KIAD Act but also the Karnataka Industrial Policy, 2014-19. It is therefore contended that the impugned letters at Annexures-A and H are vitiated, arbitrary and illegal and 7 that the same deserve to be quashed in addition to this Court issuing necessary directions to the respondents.
7. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Jaico Automobile Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka' - W.P.No.52905/2013 and W.P.No.13349/2014.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the statement of objections submits that as per Clause 5.1.5 of the Karnataka Industrial Policy 2014-19 pertaining to utilization of land acquired by KIADB and allotted for industrial purposes shall not be permitted to be used/diverted for any other purpose. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-BDA in addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the statement of objections also reiterates the contention put 8 forth by respondent No.1 with regard to usage of land as per Karnataka Industrial Policy 2014-19. Learned counsel would justify the issuance of the impugned letter at Annexure-A on the ground that pursuant to the decision taken by State Government vide letter at Annexure-H on 02.01.2014 to respondent No.2-BDA, respondent No.2- BDA has issued a impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 03.03.2014 and consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the sale deed dated 11.06.1996 at Annexure-B will indicate that the KIADB has sold, transferred and conveyed the schedule property absolutely in favour of the petitioner without imposing any conditions against the petitioner with regard to usage of the schedule property which stood conveyed absolutely in favour of the petitioner. Further, it is not in dispute that as 9 per RMP 2015, schedule property is classified as 'Commercial-Business' purposes. Under identical circumstances, in the case of 'Jaico Automobile Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,'s case supra, this Court has held as under:
"8. In the teeth of Sub Section (3) of Section 14A of the KTCP Act, there being no amendment to the statutory provision to incorporate the requirement of furnishing NOC from any of the Government agencies like KIADB, KSIDC etc., for consideration of change of land use from industrial to residential purpose, nevertheless, the declaration of law by notification of the Revised Master Plan - 2015 under Section 13D, of the 'KTCP Act' is within the jurisdiction vested in the State Government.
9. Thus, the requirement of securing NOC from KIADB for considering petitioner's claim for change of land use, is said to operate as a condition precedent. Undoubtedly this condition must operate in tandem with the jurisdiction of the State to permit the change of land use under sub Section (3) of Section 14A of the 'KTCP Act'.
10. The requirement of NOC in Note (b) of the Revised Master Plan - 2015 apparently is in case of allotment made by the Government agencies 10 like KIADB, KSIDC etc., The case of the petitioners is one of allotment followed by conveyance of absolute title and possession of the plots or land under sale deeds Annexure D series. In other words, NOC is necessary if it is an allotment by the Government agencies like KIADB, KSIDC and not in the cases where the said Government agencies have executed conveyance deeds for valuable consideration, divesting their right, title or interest in the immovable property. It is in such cases that the requirement to comply with Clause (b) of Note to the Regulation 4.7.2 is inapplicable.
11. In that view of the matter, the direction of the respondent-BDA to secure NOC from KIADB is unnecessary and Note (b) under Regulation 4.7.2 of the Revised Master Plan - 2015 is inapplicable to the petitioners.
12. In the result, petitions are allowed. The direction contained in the letter dated 19.07.2013 Annexure-B of the respondent-BDA is quashed. A declaration is issued to the respondent-BDA to consider petitioners application dated 25.05.2013 Annexure-C for change of land use in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in any event by 30.09.2015."
12. A perusal of the material on record as well as the aforesaid decision in Jaico's case (supra), will clearly 11 indicate that obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the BDA was neither required nor necessary in view of Section 14(A)(3) of the KTCP Act coupled with the absolute and unconditional sale deed dated 11.06.1996 executed in favour of the petitioner, transferring and conveying the schedule property absolutely in favour of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned letter at Annexure-A issued by the BDA and the impugned letter at Annexure-H issued by the State Government are vitiated on account of the same being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court in Jaico's case (supra).
13. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the schedule property being supposed to be used only for industrial purposes as per KIAD Act and Karnataka Industrial Policy is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Section 76M of the KTCP Act has an overriding effect over all other laws and the same 12 supercedes and overrides not only the KIAD Act but also the Karnataka Industrial Policy, 2014-19 and as such, the said contention cannot be accepted.
14. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that Section 14A (3) was omitted by the Act 38 of 2015 w.e.f. 10.09.2015, it is relevant to state that the application seeking change of land use was submitted by the petitioner on 30.02.2014 prior to omission of the aforesaid provision. Under these circumstances, the omission of the provision being clearly prospective in nature and not retrospective, the said contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this regard also deserves to be rejected.
15. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The Impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 03.03.2014 issued by respondent No.2 and Annexure- H dated 12.07.2019 13 issued by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to permit the petitioner to utilise the schedule property for the purpose specified in the Revised Master Plan, 2015 and Zoning Regulations 2007 without insisting on 'No Objection Certificate' from respondent No.3 or any other authority. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds.