Karnataka High Court
Ts Interseats India Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2024
1
WP NO.7728 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.7728 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN
TS INTERSEATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
(A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AND FACTORY,
AT NO.49, 50, 41, 54/2,
JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND
DIRECTOR,
MRS. PORNPRAPHA PHOLDAHAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRAKASH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING,
# 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
THROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
2
WP NO.7728 OF 2022
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
# 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ABANDONED BY THE RESPONDENTS; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13TH MARCH, 2012 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND NOTIFICATION DATED 04TH DECEMBER, 2012 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-P INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER-COMPANY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH)
In this writ petition, the petitioner-Company is assailing the Notifications dated 13th March, 2012 (Annexure-M) issued under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act') and 04th December, 2012 (Annexure-P) issued under Section 28(4) of 3 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 the KIAD Act, by the respondent-Authorities for acquisition of the schedule property for the purpose of development of industrial area.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner-Company claims to be the owner of industrially converted land as per the registered Sale Deed dated 04th May, 2012 (Annexure-A). It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner-Company is a part of 'Thai Summit Group' from Thailand and the entire 100% investment in the petitioner-Company is a foreign investment. The total extent purchased by the petitioner-Company as per registered Sale Deed dated 04th May, 2012 (Annexure-A) was 22 acre 16 guntas in Survey Nos.49, 50, 51, 54/1 and 54/2 of Jakkasandra Village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District for the purpose of establishing industrial unit. The petitioner-Company had also produced the Agreement of Sale dated 17th February, 2012 (Annexure-B) with the erstwhile owner. The petitioner- Company got converted the land in question for the industrial purpose as per Notification dated 05th April, 2012 (Annexure- C). The petitioner-Company has made an application for approval of its investment proposal to setup a unit for manufacturing Two-Wheeler seats and Motorcycle parts and 4 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 accessories in 20 acres land at Narsapura/Vemgal Industrial Area of KIADB, Kolar District before the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra and pursuant to the same, the Government accorded permission vide Government order dated 24th February, 2012 (Annexure-F). Thereafter, the Government has made modification of Government Order dated 24th February, 2012 by issuing new Government Order dated 09th November, 2012 (Annexure-G). The competent planning authority had also accorded permission by order dated 21st May, 2012 (Annexure- H). It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent- Authorities said to have issued the Notification dated 13th March, 2012 (Annexure-M) under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act for acquisition of various lands including the schedule land for the purpose of development of industrial area and further, the respondent-Authorities have passed Final Notification dated 04th December, 2012 (Annexure-P) under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. The petitioner-Company had requested the respondent-Authorities to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule property belonging to the petitioner- Company as per letter dated 24th August, 2012 (Annexure-N). It is the grievance of the petitioner-Company that the respondent No.2 was one of the members of 29th State High 5 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 Level Clearance Committee and proposal to establish the industrial unit was held on 06th September, 2012 and the permission was extended to the petitioner-Company to commence the industrial unit and therefore, issuance of impugned notifications by the respondent-Authorities for acquiring the schedule property is bad in law.
3. Heard Sri. Uday Holla, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Prakash B.N., appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; and Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
4. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-Company had purchased the land in question as per registered Sale Deed 04th May, 2012 (Annexure-A). Pursuant to the execution of Agreement of Sale dated 17th February, 2012 (Annexure-B) with the erstwhile owner. The land in question was converted for industrial purpose and the State High Level Clearance Committee has accorded permission to the petitioner-Company to setup unit for manufacturing Two-Wheeler Seats and 6 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 Motorcycle parts and accessories in 20 acres of land of Narasapura/Vemgal Industrial Area of KIADB, Kolar District with an investment of Rs.177.55 crores, generating employment to 514 persons by extending the infrastructure facilities, incentives and concessions as mentioned in the Government Order. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board was a party to the said Committee. The said approval of the project was amended as per Government Order dated 09th November, 2012 (Annexure-G). The petitioner-Company had established the manufacturing unit and continued to manufacture the Two-Wheeler Seats and Motorcycle parts and accessories and therefore, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed on the ground that the respondent-Authorities have not taken possession in respect of the land in question and no award has been passed till date, which makes it clear that the respondent-Authorities have abandoned the acquisition proceedings. It is also the contention of Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel that, Section 5 of the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 provides for the State High Level Clearance Committee constituted under the said Act shall 7 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 be final authority in granting approval for the projects and therefore, as the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent- Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board was also one of the party in the 29th State High Level Clearance Committee and as such, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, acquiring the subject land for establishing some other industry cannot be permitted at this stage and accordingly, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SHANTHAVEERAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2015 SCC OnLine KAR 5770 and argued that the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed in respect of the subject land.
5. Nextly, Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company contended that the respondents have not produced any Mahazar drawn in respect of taking possession of the subject land and therefore, the subject land is not vested with the Government. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of B.A. SRINIVASA GUPTA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.8873 of 2011 decided on 09th August, 2012 and contended that the entire acquisition proceedings requires to be set-aside in 8 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 respect of the subject property. By referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574 particularly referring to the paragraphs 4 and 5, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel that the claim made by the respondent- Authorities with regard to acquisition of the subject property is a stale claim. He also submitted that the aforementioned judgment in the case of MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH (supra) was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.4824 of 2010 decided on 01st March, 2014.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Uday Holla, appearing for the petitioner-Company also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2018 KAR 2144 and contended that the entire acquisition proceedings has to be set-aside as lapsed on account of not taking possession of the land in question.
7. Per contra, Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board contended that the land in question 9 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 has been acquired as per the Notifications dated 13th March, 2012 (Annexure-M) and 04th December, 2012 (Annexure-P) and the petitioner-Company, being a subsequent purchaser, has no legal right to maintain the writ petition before this Court in view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229.
8. Nextly, Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board contended that the respondents have issued notice under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act to the notified Khatedar-Smt. Sumitra (erstwhile owner of the petitioner-Company) and she had filed objections to the acquisition proceedings and same was rejected by the respondent-KIADB as per Annexure-R2 and the said fact has been suppressed in the writ petition. It is also contended by Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel that, though the State High Level Single Window Clearance Committee approved the proposal made by the petitioner-Company however, the same was not audited as per Government Order dated 27th August, 2005 (Annexure-R3). It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent- 10
WP NO.7728 OF 2022 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board that, the land in question is the subject matter in the notification dated 17th October, 2013 (Annexure-R4) issued under Section 28(8) of KIAD Act and therefore, writ petition is required to be dismissed as not maintainable.
9. In reply to the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, appearing for the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board in respect of maintainability of the writ petition, Sri. Uday Holla learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company refers of the judgment of this Court in the case of K.P. RAVIKUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.9300 of 2020 decided on 28th September, 2020 and contended that, the petitioner can maintain a writ petition before this Court, challenging the acquisition proceedings, despite being a subsequent purchaser. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Company had purchased the schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 04th May, 2012 (Annexure- 11
WP NO.7728 OF 2022 A) and same were converted for industrial purpose as per Official Memorandum dated 05th April, 2012 (Annexure-C). The petitioner-Company had produced the permission accorded by the Government by Government Order dated 24th February, 2012 (Annexure-F) to setup unit for manufacturing Two- Wheeler Seats and Motorcycle parts and accessories in 20 acres of land at Narasapura/Vemgal Industrial Area of KIADB, Kolar District and same was modified with regard to the extent of land as per the Government Order dated 09th November, 2012 (Annexure-G). It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent-Authorities have issued Notification dated 13th March, 2012 (Annexure-M) under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act and Notification dated 04th December, 2012 (Annexure-P) under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act to acquire the land for the purpose of development of industrial area. It is clearly mentioned in the Notification dated 13th March, 2012 (Annexure-M) that the owners of the land specified in the notification were directed not to create any third party rights or any conveyance to be made henceforth. The petitioner- Company had purchased the subject land as per registered Sale Deed dated 04th May, 2012 (Annexure-A) and therefore, the petitioner-Company has to be identified as a subsequent 12 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 purchaser. In this regard, it is relevant to follow the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. MANPREET SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 29, wherein at paragraph 6 to 8, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the original writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who has acquired the right, title or interest in the land in the year 2018. The original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect to the land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") was issued. From the material on record, it appears that before the High Court, the original writ petitioner claimed the right, title or interest on the basis of the Assignment Deed of 2015. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980 and the award was declared on 05.06.1987. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the consideration of this Court is:-
Whether the original writ petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition?
7. The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra), which has been subsequently followed by another Bench of this Court in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (supra) and Pawan 13 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 Kumar (supra). The decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) is a Three Judge Bench decision by which a contrary view taken by the Two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751 has not been accepted and is found to be not a good law. That thereafter after following the Three Judge Bench decision in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra), this Court has subsequently observed and held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings / lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.
8. In that view of the matter, the High Court has committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the respondent No. 1 herein -
original writ petitioner and has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in a writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein - original writ petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser. Under the circumstances and on that ground alone, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be quashed and set aside."
11. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANPREET SINGH (supra), it is clear that the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. In the case of SHIV KUMAR (supra) also, 14 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, any sale after the issuance of acquisition notification is void ab initio. Though the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Uday Holla, appearing for the petitioner- Company places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of K.P. RAVI KUMAR (supra), perusal of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in entirety makes it clear that, after issuance of preliminary notification, neither the owner nor the occupant of the land in question is empowered to convey the property by creating third party rights. Therefore, to that extent, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company cannot be accepted.
12. It is also pertinent to mention here that the vendor of the petitioner-Company namely Smt. Sumithra made a representation to the respondent-Authorities seeking to delete the subject land from the acquisition and the respondent- Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, after considering same, passed order dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure-R2). perusal of writ papers would indicate that the petitioner-Company made an application to the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra with a proposal to set-up unit of manufacturing Two-Wheeler Seats and Motorcycle parts and accessories and in the said minutes of meeting by the State High Level Clearance 15 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 Committee, permission was accorded and the Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board was also a party to the said proceedings. In view of the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, as the petitioner- Company had taken permission from the Government as per Government Orders dated 24th February, 2012 (Annexure-F) 09th November, 2012 (Annexure-G) to setup a unit for manufacturing Two-wheeler Seats and Motorcycle parts and accessories and further perusal of photographs enclosed at Annexure-L series would indicate that the petitioner-Company had put-up full fledged industry, employing 514 persons by extending the infrastructure facilities, incentives and concessions as mentioned in the Government Order and therefore, I am of the opinion that the writ petition cannot be rejected at the threshold. In that view of the matter, as the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board also initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of establishment of industrial unit, in a peculiar circumstances of the case, I feel that, no interference be called at this juncture to quash the impugned notifications dated 13th March, 2012 (Annexure-M) and 04th December, 2012 (Annexure-P) insofar as the subject property is concerned. However, it is open for 16 WP NO.7728 OF 2022 the petitioner-Company to approach the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to regularise the land in question in favour of the petitioner-Company subject to payment of development/necessary charges. Therefore, the petitioner-Company is directed to make representation to the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board in this regard and if such a representation is made by the petitioner-Company within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, it is open for the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to regularise the land in question, subject to payment of development/necessary charges that may be determined by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board in terms of the Circular/Notifications, if any, under the peculiar circumstances of the case.
13. It is also to be noted that the observation made by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be considered as precedent for disposal of any other cases. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK