Karnataka High Court
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor ... vs Ministry Of Environment And Forests on 10 June, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19784
WP No. 19704 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 19704 OF 2014 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
1. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LIMITED
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN,
OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPREENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
D. RAVISHANKAR.
2. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN,
OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPREENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
Digitally signed D. RAVISHANKAR.
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. RVS NAIK., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
KARNATAKA SRI. NITIN PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 003,
REPREENT BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (CENTRAL)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19784
WP No. 19704 of 2014
HC-KAR
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,
REGIONAL OFFICE (SZ),
KENDRIYA SADAN,
4TH FLOOR, E&F WINGS,
17TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 034.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
4. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
5. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
ARANYA BHAVAN,
18TH CORSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
6. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RAMANAGARA)
RAMANAGARA TERRITORIAL DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA-570128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN., ASG., FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. SIDDARTH BABURAO., SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR
STATE FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE R6'S
NOTICE DT.22.3.14, BEARING NO. A2(A2)/LND/CR-110/2010-11
VIDE ANN-AB, & CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19784
WP No. 19704 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing Respondent No. 6's notice dated 22.03.2014 bearing No. A3(A2)/LND/CR- 110/2010-11 (Annexure-AB) and consequently. b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioners are not liable to pay any further amount to the Respondents as NPV, additional NPV, interest of NPV whatsoever in respect of the above extent of 68.215 Hectares of forest land in B.M. Kaval, Handigundi and Chikkamannagudde Villages;
c. Award costs of these proceedings in favour of the petitioners, and d. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner No.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in implementing the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) comprising of 111 km Expressway between -4- NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR Bangalore and Mysore, 41 km Peripheral Road along the periphery of Bangalore City, 9.1 km Link Road connecting Bangalore City to the Expressway and various industrial infrastructural facilities in terms of framework agreement dated 3.4.1997 entered by the Petitioner with the State of Karnataka, which is the subject matter of various litigations.
3. The present litigation is as regards the demand made by the Respondent-State on 22.3.2014 as regards the Net Present Value ('NPV', for short) payable on account of the diversion of forest land for non-forest activities of implementing the said project, more particularly, the interest thereon which is claimed at Rs.6,68,67,132/-.
4. The submission of Sri.R.V.S.Naik, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner is that 4.1. The Petitioner was always aggregable to make payments in terms of the order dated -5- NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR 30.10.2002 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India in W.P.(Civil) No.202/1995. However, it's the respondents themselves who had clarified that no such payments were required to be made.
4.2. The Government of Karnataka vide its notification dated 17.1.2004 had categorically indicated that NPV is not liable to be paid for land approved for diversion prior to 30.10.2002 but was required to be paid only as regards land which was permitted to be diverted post 30.10.2002.
4.3. The Central Government through the Assistant Inspector General of Forests had also issued a clarification on 25.4.2004 that the NPV of diverted forest land shall be charged only where in-principle approval was granted after 30.10.2002 and not earlier and shall not be charged in those cases where in-principle or -6- NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR final approval has been granted prior to 30.10.2002.
4.4. These clarifications having been issued both by the State Government and the Central Government, there was no requirement to make payment of any money by the Petitioner. 4.5. It is subsequently only on 1.3.2011 that the Deputy Conservator of Forests had caused a demand on 1.3.2011 for the diversion of 68.215 hectares amounting to Rs.627.578 lakhs. Since the said demand was not accompanied by any calculation the Petitioner vide its letter dated 15.4.2011 requested the said Deputy Conservator of Forest to furnish details of calculation.
4.6. On 14-02-2012, though not with sufficient details, a demand was made by the Deputy Conservator of Forest for a sum of Rs.1,05,63,750/- as regards diversion of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR 16.875 hectares in B.M.Kaval coming within the Bangalore city jurisdiction. The payment towards the same was made by the Petitioner on 22.3.2012.
4.7. An Official Memorandum came to be issued on 17.10.2012 as regards the land in Ramanagar and Channapatna and an amount of Rs.3,79,91,600/- was levied as NPV for diversion of land in Ramanagar District amounting to 51.34 hectares. This amount was paid by the Petitioner under cover of its letter dated 5.11.2012.
4.8. Therefore, the submission of Sri.Naik, learned Senior counsel is that as and when the demand was made, the Petitioner has made the payment of the due amount, there is no delay on part of the Petitioner. The demand now under challenge is only as regards the alleged interest liable to be paid calculated from the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR year 2002 on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 30-10-2002. 4.9. When the State Government and Central Government had categorically indicated that no amount was required to be paid, it is for that reason that the Petitioner did not make payment of the amount though the Petitioner was ready and willing to take payment of the amount as undertaken. As and when the demand was made in the year 2011 and the calculation furnished in the year 2012, the balance amount has been paid and as such, no interest could be levied in connection thereto. 4.10. On the above basis he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed.
5. Sri.Siddarth Baburao, learned Special counsel for the State submits that:
5.1. In terms of the Order dated 30-10-2002 of the Hon'ble Apex Court though not placed on record -9- NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR the liability to make payment of the said amount commenced from 30.10.2002, the petitioner was required to make payment of interest from that date, on the amount not paid.
5.2. He also relies on Section 4 of the Interest Act, 1978 to contend that interest shall be payable in all cases in which it is payable by virtue of any enactment or other rule or law or usage having the force of law since the requirement to make payment of the amount is under an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is subsection (1) of Section 4 which would be applicable requiring the Petitioner to make payment of interest.
6. Sri.Shanthi Bhushan, learned DSGI submits that the Central Government was under the impression and had interpreted the Order dated 30.10.2002 of the Hon'ble Apex Court to mean that it is only post
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR 30.10.2002 if any diversion was made that NPV was required to be paid and on that basis, instructions have been issued by the concerned officers. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 15.9.2006 has categorically clarified the position and held that NPV is required to be paid irrespective of the in-principle approval having been granted prior to 30.10.2002 since the same is not a final approval. In the present case also, the final approval having been granted to the Petitioner for diversion of the land post the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2003, the Order dated 30.10.2002 being applicable at least from the date of clarification issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 15.9.2006, the Petitioner is liable to make payment of the said amount and if not paid within a reasonable period of time, interest thereon, in terms of subsection (1) of Section 4 is required to be made.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR
7. Heard Sri.R.V.S.Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.Shanthi Bhushan, learned DSGI for Respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.Siddarth Baburao, learned Special Counsel for Respondents No.3 to 6 and perused papers.
8. The short question that would arise from consideration is whether the Petitioner would be liable to make payment of interest on the NPV as regards the demand that was raised only in the year 2011?
9. The facts in the present matter are not in dispute inasmuch as in-principle approval granted to the Petitioner for diversion of forest land for non-forest activity was granted on 23.11.2000, much prior to the date of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad's case on 30.10.2002. The final approval was granted on 26-2- 2003. post the order dated 30-10-2002. The State
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR Government had issued a notification on 17.1.2004 indicating that for in-principle approvals granted prior to 30.10.2002, NPV was not required to be paid. Similar was the clarification issued by the Government of India through the Assistant Inspector General of Forrest who again clarified that for in- principle approval granted after 30.10.2002, NPV would be applicable and not to the post granted. This issue finally drew the attention of the Hon'ble Apex Court on account of the affidavit filed by the then Assistant Inspector General of Forrest. The Hon'ble Apex Court came to a categorical conclusion that the interpretation drawn by him as regards to order dated 30.10.2002 was completely erroneous and taking into consideration that the interest for approval that had been granted post 30.10.2002 without payment of NPV, the Ministry was directed to take steps to recover from the User Agency, NPV in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR terms of the orders dated 29/30.10.2002 and 1.8.2003.
10. This clarification had been issued on 15.9.2006.
Subsequent to that, there was no demand which had been made by the Respondent nor was such a clarification of the Hon'ble Apex Court informed to the Petitioner more so when the Petitioner was not a party to those proceedings.
11. It is only on 1.3.2011 that a demand was made for a sum of Rs.627.578/- lakhs. The same not being accompanied with any reasons or calculation, the Petitioner sought for clarification as to how the calculation was made vide its letter dated 15.4.2011, which though not clarified in entirety, a demand was raised on 14.2.2012, which was made payment of on 22.3.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,05,63,750/- lakhs. A further Official Memorandum had been issued on 17.10.2012 demanding an amount of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR Rs.3,79,91,600/-, the same amount was paid under cover of letter dated 15.8.2012.
12. If these facts which are not in dispute are considered, from 30.10.2002, when the imposition was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, till 15.9.2006, both the State and the Central Government were categorical in stating that for projects which have received in-principle approval prior to 30.10.2002, there would be no requirement to make payment of NPV. It is after the clarification of 15.9.2006, that the Forest Department of the State Government could have caused a demand on the Petitioner to make payment of the NPV. The same having been communicated by the Central Government to the State Government 3.10.2006. However, the State Government did not raise any demand on the Petitioner till 1.3.2011, which again was without any details, and it is only subsequently that the demands were raised.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR
13. As regards the demand, which was raised on 14.2.2012, payment was made on 22.3.2012, and as regards the Official Memorandum issued on 17.10.2012, payment was made on 5.9.2012. In the first case, within 40 days of the demand; in the second case, a little less than 20 days from the date of the demand. When the payment has been made within such a short time, I am of the considered opinion that there cannot be said to be any delay on the part of the Petitioner in making payment of the amount demanded requiring interest to be levied on the Petitioner.
14. The demand having been made only in the year 2012, question of interest being levied from the year 2002, more particularly from 30.10.2002, till the date of payment would not arise.
15. I answer the point raised by holding that the Petitioner should not be required to make payment of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19784 WP No. 19704 of 2014 HC-KAR any interest on the NPV due until the demand was made by the Respondent State. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) A certiorari is issued. The notice dated 22.3.2014 bearing No.A3(A2)/LND/CR-
110/2010-11 issued by Respondent No.6 at Annexure-AB is quashed.
iii) Needless to say, the Petitioner having already made payment of the due amounts, no further amounts as interest or otherwise are required to be paid by the Petitioner.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36