M/S Prudential Housing And ... vs State Of Karnataka Reptd By Its Prl ... on 13 December, 2010

[Cites 15, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Prudential Housing And ... vs State Of Karnataka Reptd By Its Prl ... on 13 December, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2011 (2) AIR KAR R 185

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

5%

I  [Q

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 

AT BANGALORE __ _ 
Dated this the 13% day Of ._ 3

BEFORE O

E) M,- '

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE-ED V «S31-{Y-LENIV)R;'.!;..  _

Wrrt Petmon No. 230840) 2005 {LA;KLé;D1¥3) 
Wnt Petr:-Ion No. 5-030&o;'j2'0--1' 0 (LAgKL/{DB},
Writ Petition N0. 3252-0f:20Q6~ fLA--'{L4DB)
and Writ .PetitiOn.N0.. :11'O93A3'~,Of' 2:QO7v{LA--KL5LDB}

  '.6751: o 1201 0
Wm'.t,;§>¢ti:-ion No. 23084 of 2005 (LAKIADB)

IN WP NO. 23084 O:%*'A20e5OV'0'--.." 
Am msC.v5_r._:':;71'oL2jg1_0«..__ " '

BETW_:;I:21$_I

K.)

vPRUDEN;FIAI;'"HOUSlNG 8.:

O W , II*TFRA.'3',l'RUC'lURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

"130/__1'; ULSOOR ROAD.

 BARGA;.ORE~'; 560 042.

"RER.B3ii_'rS DIRECTOR

"'44.MR;_v'NAE\?~i R CHOKSEY

MR.,__RAv1 PURVANKARA

* = 48/0 LATE) K PURVANKARA

AGED ABOUT 52 YRS,

V "130/1. ULSOOR ROAD.

COMMON
PETITEONERS

BANGALORE 42.

{By Sri Vivek Holla. Adv. for
M/s. I--Ioiia 81 }-£0113, AdVs.]

 



AND

fa)

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPTD BY ETS PR1, SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND ENDUSTRIES.
M S BUELDINGS

DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHE
BANGALORE W 560 O0].

KARNATAKA ENDUSTRIAL AREAS
D1'~;VELOPMEN'I' BOARD,  
N014/3, 11 FLOOR  _
RASH'E'RO'l'HANA BU:ELDlNGV,O.----- _ "
N R ROAD, V __  5 _  ..
BANGALORE -- 560 om; - r  1

RERBY I'lS CHIEF EXEC-UETVE 0FF1._<f:'1:§~. 

B P PAPPANA FREDDY.
sY.N0.1_.3g14, ' _'   
IBULUR. 31031,: B13GUR," ' ;
BANGAL()_RE E5QU'fH  V  *
BANGAi;QF:E.  " U 

B 

PAPAIAH ALEAE: LATE 
MUNEYAPPA »  '

V-':O_i§1:AF,AYA_NA REDDT' "

R¢.--R5  R/AT SY.NO. 14,

  13U'1.,u'£'2,,' 4403141 BEGUR,
~ . -:'_BAN.Q;A1.o.RE--vs0U'm
* . 'BANG-A:;QB;E.

E1 OWRAMMA

W V NARASEMHA REDDY

A ~ .--._sY.N"o. 29 & 30, EBULUR

HOBLI BEGUR,

V'  §5ANGAE,ORE SOUTH

BANGALORE.

H R (IHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LA'E'}33 H K RAMAIAH
SY.NO.32, EBULUR



9.

10.

II.

I2.

DJ

HOBLI BEGUR.
BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE

ALSO AT: NO.12/1
NEXT TO CANARA BANK
HEBBAL.

BANGALORE M 560 052

LAKSHMAIAH REDDY ALIAS.  ' 
MOTAPPA REZDDY  "

V M GOPALA REDD7';"'A_LiAS.V"""'
LATE MOTAPPA REDBY' _ I

K S YELLAPPA ALIAS  ..
NARAYANAPPA  *
R9--R11_.ARE RT/_Air 'V    
SY.NO.33, i;}3ULUR .  '
HOBLIBEG'UE2_;., _f V *
BANOGALQRSE SGIUTH' * ~ _ 
BANGALORE).   v 

A R ASHwA'IHN;§RAYA§A«2§EDDY
ALIAS ¥lAIvIAIAH REDDX'
SY,N0.34/3. EBULUR

, HOB}.-I BEGURA V
 _ -- BAI§{}ALORE SO'UTi~I
 BANGALORE.

V  SM19;iA§1xfL-Af{SHMAMMA
. 'W/O B-1? PAPANNA REDDY
*-AGED ABOU'1'65 YEARS

P MCIHAN REDDY

H : ._S,/o'"S P PAPANNA REDDY
,_ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

13 P IVLANJ UI\1'A'E'H REDDY

S / O B P PAPANNA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 4! YEARS

R13-R15 ARE R/AT NOE}
AS}-IIRVAD, HONALUR CROSS ROAD



 22}f7'~OF 5Iff3£E3CO%\ES'I'ITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
'RESPONDENT r;,E1:aE1N TO ISSUE FINAL NO'nF1CATION UNDER

-«.__KSOUTH~. TALUK, MEASURING ABOUT 50 ACRES (SCHEDULE LANDS) AND ETC, O V' ,.uNIISC.W. 571 of 2010 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 Rj'W ARTICLE 228 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO .IM7PLEAD THE APPLICANTAS PARHY RESPONDENT AND ETC. OPP. SARJAPUR ROAD.

BANGALORE M 560 002.

16. D P HARISH KUMAR S/O B P PAPANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ._ R/AT SY,NO.E")O/1 I AMBOTIPURA SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE -- 580 102.

:7. PAPALAH S/O LATE MUNIYAPRA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R,/AT NO.24:z, " ~ BELANDUR VILLAGE V VARTHUR HOSL1, . --- _ v_ A BANGALOBEIEAST COMMON RESPONDENTS '''' H '={.Ey As,ho;;"Iaarg;na1+;a11i, AG A/w O " Sifi VCf;ka.téSh' Doddéfi, AGA for R1:

._ --S1fi'i?5aFS_avaraj_"V7-.Sabarad, Adv. for R2; _ G Sri ORagi:,uD-ath, Adv. for R3; =Sr'i»L S"Vef1katzikjriShna, Adv. for R3(A--D}; ..Sr'i K Srih-ivasa Gowda, Adv. for R4; Sr: M V Vedachala, Adv. for R17] F. WRIT FENDON is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND SEC'F1r3N'28_i4) 'OF THE KIADB ACT. 1961 FOR ACQUISITION OF THE.__ LANDS"=;BEARING SY.NO. 13,14,15.29.30,32,33 AND 34 SITUATEE) If-E" IBBALUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE IN WP NO. 30309 OF 2010 BETWEEN

1.

£0 AND M/S PRUDEINTIAL HOUSENG = & INFRAS'{'RUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD _ _ HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFP'lC_F..A'1"__ N030/1, ULSOOR ROAD, * BANGALOREASGOO42 A .. --

REPRESENTED BY ms D1REC'I'OR1__ MRNANI R CE-IOKSEIY A A. MR RAVI PURAVANKARA S/O LATE K PURAVANAKARA. 9 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.130/1. ULSQOR jROAI)*,;

BANGALORE-5$.0042--. ' ' REPTD _B-Y'HISI.EC?WE.R__O'I§ ATTOREEEYHOLDE-R " _ ' MR_NAN1'V~R'O1é:;OKsF,YV V * PETITIONERS A:O3O;~:§_iu.a_ H Samuel. Adv. for ' _ Cariappa 8: C0,, Advs.] .. 'srrA'r§§' OF E_{_ARI.'JA'1'AKA

- .O..R'EPf?ESENTED BYITS A ' u , PRINCIPAL. SECRETARY COIVEMERCE' AND INDSUTRIES 'QM.s;BiJ1_:.D'IN*Gs, DR.AMBI__3DiKAR VEEDH1.

G'AL£)RE--5600() I KZARP-fA'FAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA " =».D1«:vELOPMEN'1' BOARD I \'{{).14/3. HND FLOOR, V RASHTROTHANA BUELIDING.

N.R.ROAD, BANGALOREASBOOO1 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER V' "IANNI1:XURE: S PASSED BY 'E'I~1?:"3 FIRST RESPONDENT AND E'I'C.. IN' 324.52 019* 2006 Q 1. RA;5AIA:«I A v R/O NO 247

2. B P PAPANNA REDDY

3. MR LAKSHMAIAH REDDY S/O MOTAPPA REDDY R/A AGARA VELLAGE, BEGUR HOBII, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE ._

4. MR V M GOPALA REDDY S/O E.A'FE MOTAPPA REDDY R/A AGARA VILLAGE. I BEGUR HOBLI. ~~ BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, ' ' BANGALORE

5. MR K S YELLAPPA S / O NARAYANAPPA R /A AGARA4'v:'£L1.AGIjC, BEGUR HOBLL--' --.

BANGALORE SOUTH _'i'ALUK. "

BANGALOF;-E'__ ' RESPONDENTS """ :'§;'énE{a.i;§:'sh I'"5OCiti0ri, AGA for R1; __ -- P-'YA'Clfiavndras-hekaI', Adv. for R2; M/ s."SheVagOO1'I.&. Ka(Ra:hV...Law Associates, Advs. for R5] THIS 'WRIT BBTIT:ON.fgS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OR"t:fI~IE CO.?.\_JS"I'ITUT7'.ON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNBD NO*IIFIOAf§iION DATED 31.08.2010 PRODUCED AT Bi;'mrI:; EN A ' 'I, A A S/ EQATE IVIUNIYAPPA ' AGED ABOUT 65 YRS.

HBELANDUR VELLAGE VARTHU R HOBLI.

BANGALORE EAST TALUK 8/ O LATE CHIKKA PELLA REDDY 3' .-hr.

'us , r AGED ABOUT 75 YRS NO 9, ASHIRWAD, HARLUR ROAD CROSS. OFF SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE -- 560 034 A R ASHWMRANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE A V RAIVEAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 WARS "

NO 30, :5 MAIN, LAKKASANDRA BANGALORE) 27 . ' REP BY HIS P A HOLDER SR1 NIRMAL BAFNA.

MANAGING D1REc'rO"R.V_ _ M/S ANSU BU1LDER"P_V'I'_L'IfD, ;g . ' _ . A _

208. 2 FLOOR "SHREE c.OMRLE>:;.

NO 73, STJOHN'S V A ' "

BANGALORE; 560 C42 ' '~ M/S MANGAIA3'g_£~1'N'l'ERE?Rl$ES" V A PAR'Ff\IERi3E-11? I*'IF'J\/I"'Ii£AV'i£«.\T.,(,-3 ITS OFFIQE Afxj 'NO:_29, SFLOOR. "WHI'1'E,"EiQUSE"?*; MA'RK'S ROAD, BA:NGAI,OREV-...560 00;' - I REP BY1'1':;~', M'ANAGi»NG--PAR'i'NER SR1 ANSRAG JAIN v _ "-- PETITEONERS i'ByV_S1"i.. M V Vedachala, Adm} E:STA'§'E- KARNATAKA E'Fi .'*V{E3P BY"1*f{?£ CHIEF SECRETARY ' ._f:'O THE'4C}OVERN£\/IENT. VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE ~ 560 00} V V S.'I'A'I'E OF' KARNATAKA DEPAR'E'MEN'E' OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M S BULIDING BANGALORE -« 560 001.

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY EASIDEA.'I7HENOTE'IF1CA'I'ION DT. 14.1.04 U/S 3(1) VIDE ANNEXURE PROCEEDINGS PURSUAN'I"1'HERE'DO AND ETC. 1N Nd. 10933 OF 2007 . BE'rWE"' EN " "B? VENKATASWAMY REDDY s/0 CHEKKA PILLA REDDY 8

3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEIVEZLOPMENT BOARD.

NO 14/3, I FLOOR, RASH'.I'RO'E'HANA PARISHAD BULEDING. NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGLAORE -- 560 001 REP BY 1'18 CHAIRMAN

4. THE SPECEALLAND ACQUESFHON OFFICER _ .. " V A _ KARNATAKAINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO _.1_.4'/3,. I uFLOOR--. __ RASH'E'RO'1'HANA PARISHAT'BU1'LDIN'G.._ "

NRUPATHUNGA BANGALOREASGO 001 A " '

5. M/S z>RUDE,m*LAL H;oUs1N,G AND~,_ INFRAs'rRUc"m-RF. D--EvE1;OPMENT L:M1'rED A COMEAM/j s'i'1a;R__ED.. UNDELR TI.-IE COMPANIESACT ;L\j\ID'£1";°xV'I1\I£} ms REc}_r§'1'ER.VED1«:),FF1::?Ia:V A'i'-- NEW JADRUT1 N0"227;- S V ROAD. BANDRA (WEST;

MUMBAT -¢1.Q0.Q5oA . j RESPONDENTS {By Sri. Venkaiw;-S'h_: Dédderi, AGA for R1 & R2:

S1i._VBasavaraj_ VSé1barad, Adv. for R3 8: R4; AM/s."H011a & Holla, Advs. for R5] A - '$13323 WRIT PE*E*I*1'1DN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227.01» CONS'I'1TU'1'ION OF ENDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET C._"A1_'{D"'TIfi.E_1vNO'l'IFICAT}ON DT. 14.2.2004 U/S 1(3) VIDE ANNEXURE D1.AND'1'HE NOT1FICA'l'ION DT 14.1.2004 U/S. 28(1) OF KIAD -ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE E AND ALL FURTHER AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

R/AT N042}. I'3E},I.ANDUR VILLAGE; BANGALORE EAST 'E'Al.UK, VARTI-IUR HOBLI.

BANGALORE~56O 03?.

[By Sri. K Srinivasa GVQVVIZIE. A:,iV"§j = -I . AND I I h I

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA V p REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECREATARY TO THE DEPARTMEWF OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA; j' V VIKAS SOUDHA, ' " I v * BANGALORE 1.

E0 THE KARNATAKA IN;f)US'I'Rl.AI, AREA ' * DEvELoP:y71Ei<:jr'8oA¥2D%L " _ NRUPAf_mrj131GA.t;2oALj,._'_ " " V .

BANGA:.oI¢:Eg1, ' BY rrs c'H.1E:r£:XEcUT1VE "OFFICER AND E}{ECUTIV}§: 'M1«:MB-ER.

3. M/S. PRUDENTIAL HoU.sl'rqG &. INFRAS'I"RUCT_U RE' I)E;vE'LOPMEN'r LTD.. 30/ 1, 'ULS0.0R ROAD A .

13ANGA1.©EgE 'W560 042 .. REP.' BY ms 'D.fREC'.I'-C)R

- .I._SRIi,.A1\¥Ai'€FIA. R CI-IOKSIEY RESPONDENTS _ Venkaiesh. Dodderi, AGA for R1; . Sriﬁasavaraj V Sabarad, Adv. for R2; . ABM/s. I-Iolla & Ilolla, Advs. for R3] VI/"RI"? PE'I'I'I'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND D "22.7j OF 'HIE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TI-IE ['RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE A NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF * KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT. ~ EXCLUDING THE PE'I'ITIONER'S LAND BEARING SY.NO. E4. MEASURING 2 ACRES 39 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT IBBALUR I "'v'I1,I;AC}E, BANGALORE SOU"I."I~I TALUK, FROM TH E INDUSTRIAL AREA. INCLUDED IN ANNEXURPLC. D AND E ALI. DT. 16.10.2004 AND ETC.

5. It is also the version of the petitioners Hthe;t._Vt.he application was processed by high level comm;ittee"'hesd_e'd.p_ by not less than the chief minister of _--tl*»e.:i:st:ei'te «at meeting held on 23-7-2003, whe.;fein~,s.j:tuéiphp.eé11"s";'}5.ev"e:feil other projects like the one p'fop_oselcl'~to'be eoxieeutepcl petitioners, were also exai;ii'1-";:ed..__by." level committee and petitioners" to the writ petition a of the high level l¢!3~7~2008 under the chairmlaAns.hiplVol'V minister Sn' 8 M Krishna w1'th the l"'follow1'VhgV'peiisons as members, who are all , ministers' and se'nio_r___b.'ureaucrats:

A I Krishna Chairman " T _".,,._'I.{on_'b'I.e ChiefMinister V ' Government ofKarnataka 2} Deshpande Vice Chairman ' V __ * Hon'ble Ministerfor Large éiz. Medium Industries HA3} V S Kotgalgi Member Horfble Mini:ster_for Agriculture 4} 5}

6) 7} 51% 13 M Shivanna Horfble M inister for Horticulture TJOIIH é Hon'ble Mimlster ofStaIe for Infrastructure Development D B Inamdar Hon'ble M in.i$~£er ofS'icaie:' for Tourism anoﬂ '_ V Information Techrtol'ogy Subif Singh ._ Rrir'¢cip'aL~Secreta;y to :1' .

Gover:_1rrte'nt, 'C7om'mejrcev_&' ._._Ir1"CZ.us tiiifes D._€P1:.' " ' A Princ'ipaZ._Secreiary to 'G_overr1rrLer:t," A__C}T1bulI'LiV€ arid._VHoriicLiZture Depar'EffI»§?_FLiv V cN«.G?okulram Pr'ii1ce'pal Secretary to A '€3~'o1}*»err'Lrner1t ' ' Forest, Ecology & EI1UiI'OI'ITI"i€I1i Dept. LL " 0) T Y Nayaz Ahmed Principal Secretary to Govern men t.

Labour Department Member h 'Member Member Member Member ré ' Member e

11) 12} 13} 142 .14 S Krishna K umar Principal Secretary to Government, Infrastructure Development Department P Kotilingangoiicl Chairman & Managing Director, Karnat'aka»State Industrial Invesirrientclrinci Member De uelopment Corpolraiiio n " - . ._ Viuek Kulkarni 'V C V Secretary Info;~m<itfr1)n 3_'echnoio_gig'l .. Depw" 3 _ G"'Gii'*'iﬁ:fhara'r'2 ._ "

to GQlJ8I'Ti_ mint :Repre'se ritea' {pal A A Secretfaryj,' ~Fi'n.a'nce' em"

Managing Director titiemm "l[_1C6) llﬂebpartrnerz " V A K N Sl'U.'ii)CiSi'C1Ua __J*?Cliannabasappa . . Secretary to Government Represented Principal C Q7} 3 Secretary, Water Resources Department Ashok Kumar C Manoii Commissioner of Commercial Taxes " .A_Mei_nber Member Member Member additional subjects. The outcome of the _ as 1ii'1deif:

'R7ln:x:_ADmurKnwu;sUBJEcTs:

18) C S Kedar Member Secretary to Government, ' Kannada 8:, Culture Department 19} Lukose Vallatharqj _ 4I'vQ'e'rr1l:ée1-'.__:'- V l' V Chieflixecutive Qfﬁcer 'T Executive Member, : KIADB A

20) MA Basith % ll/Ierrlber SeniorDirect:or.

Represented"'Secretary rd x V .

Government, Planning V' ' D6Parﬁlm€'nt:.A"""»."' * 21} S.ShaJ:ijlco;_rrtcl1'ay(;nct«-- in V Member Deptlty "Seere"t«3iIfy" :

repre'se:.j1_ted.,Princip£1.lV V Seei9etar§;{R.eve'nue .

:Depci:'tfnentj l '

6. In far' as"stile""*2tjj'[3lication of the petitioners is conogzrrted, it wa_s'ConsiderecE by this high level committee far the petitioners are COI1CE3I'1'1€:'d, is ll) Proposal of M/s Prudential Housing & Ity'rctst.rttctur'e development Ltd to establish IT (Q/to e V V" lVDe'UelopAment Ltd" is one of the group companies ._Qf'_M,./'s, 'Purauanlcara Projects Ltd. who are well '"=j'or' tvhefyear ending 31.3.2001 is Rs. I128 lClI'4ChSv..~""

.. ﬁetails of proposed project:

1.6 infrastructure & residential quartersf'"=in«_'"t_ Bangalore. ' Mr. Girisli Puravankara,_. ~ _ presented the project' in det'a;il;"'as. under:.~_V ' Name & Address : M/s. Prudential of the Company Infrastructure dev'el.op_r_rien;t No. 1.30,/_1}._: Ulsoor Roach _Ba.ngalo're. _ E Name of the _M_r. Rav'i'*P%urauankara Promoter Mr.fNani_.~R 'C_hof_c.sey " - ._Mr. 'Girish Puravankara 50f' V ____ land mark buildings» _likéiPurva'Park. Purva heights, Purva Graces Baclcgro,und company:

M /us'; "-Pr_udential Housing & Infrastructure li"n,ouin Developers. The total income of the group The company has proposed to establish IT infrastructure and residential quarters at survey No. 13.14,15,29,30,32,33 and 34 of Iblur village, Begur Hobli. Bangalore south taluk. The total built up area proposed is 4 million sqft.

Out of which 2.5 million sq.fi. is jorf infrastruciu.re. leisure and related u » 3 activities. 1.5 million sq.fi. is for residential' quarters. Employment: is pr0posed»..._':io provided for 150 persons.I-'1'*he»de;tails_Aof_thef} A project cost' and means V jollows: V Cost of the Project .)nJear1.'3' .'_'f 3' (Rs. in crores) la) Bldg.

(b) Plant & Land & (Rs. in crores) "(ajlV..'Promoier's"" 8.00 3 coiitr'il9i:iiCn lb)' Terﬁi loans --

[c) Others 3' gm. '(c)'O.ihe_rs mm. ; 371.50 3379.350 .

_ .... _'1"'1e"'campa.rig_V'has....§oi1ghi the following i1.Vy'rastrai:turei.4 facilities . and ' incentives and co.ncession5."'-~._ 3 ' I n frasilrucﬁ-.re_ faei'lities:~ KL?51DB____I_ﬁo acquire 50 acres of land in the _ sgi.'rios.A..A1i3.i4,15,29,30,32,33 and 34 of Iblur _ Begur hobli. Bangalore south ialuk as a single' unit'-v'cor71plex.

20,00,000 Lirs of water per day from BWSSB 3% =,Power.--- 30.000 KVA from BESCOM and within 3' "4--6 years in phases.

Incentives and concessions:-

As per Millennium IT policy.

379. 50 ..EVqterf¥ 0.0,0'O0lTl,trs of water per day to be _~ ' is upplied BVWSSB.

the National Water Policy including 'water7]'harvesting, recharging of ground water. complete recycling of water etc. The company quantum of recycled water. '1' he company " "should also clearly specify their requirements of 18 After detailed discussions, the Comfnititeei » it approved the following injrasiiructural assistance, incentives and concessions. fir) A Infrastructure facilities:-

Lancl:- KIADB to acquirelfind allot 50 facres of land mentioned above identﬁiedv by F the company of Iblur v~il_lage;"Begur Hobli, Bangalore South tq. as a single unit' c%jonzplexg.there are no impediments to acqui-sitio'n

(a) The co;'np}1ny:=._ will 0 development underralcenihy. t'l1e_projec;i consonance with the

(ii)025;érrniésio}§i_j:.::reivcaizéklof roads in the cop, gJ".._required;V':'u2ili._be.__o'btained by company from the appropriate 'authorities.

company was advised to adopt the also advised to indicate their net reqiiirentent of water after taking into account treated water and fresh water to BWSSB. Power?» BESCOM to supply 30,000 KVA and within. 4-6 years in 2 phases.

20 Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Areas Deveiopment Act. 1966 [for short, statutory provisions of the Act read"as..anc1'e1evV"" '4

1. Short title, extent if socx (3) This Act-ziegccepytiiehqpter.VII shall come into force at.._once;t Chapter VII shall come into force in sueh ar,ea»'and._frofi1Vsuch date as the State...Governm,ent*,rn;:;y--;from time to _time--,_ by not;;,fictation, s}:;ecy"y in this

3. :IJee:!ay('ation.'b_.:1f' areas - _ (1}"W'J'.he«, State Government may, by _ ' no't§fiea.tion;..d'eeIare any area in the State gto. be"vanwyir1dtis_trtat area for the purposes ofthfs Act, ' ' '52e.t Acqtiisstiston of land -

,(1'~)_{f' at any time, in the opinion of the Government, any land is required the purpose of development by the ' Board, or for any other purpose in furtherence of the objects of this Act. the State Government may by nottfieation, give notice of its intention to acqiiire such land. _ 2'1

8. It is also the plea of the petitioner that the called upon the petitioners to deposit a crore as part payment towards tentative it be acquired for setting up the of and the petitioners, in fact, thiswithl' the board and a copy o"f~.the board is appended to the writ It is also the further that another organization IT Infrastructure or leorhpetitor to the petitioners, had questio'ned' of the proceedings of the high level petition before this court in 3l~E32$L5p_2of éltlldélyand this petition, in fact, is pending and even today is on the board of this eoiirt figijiiinlglat Sl No 79 in the day's Cause list. It is also ,V_ut'urther"at/erred that on the advice and guidance of the '.j_lstateilgovernment, and with the project of the petitioners it "being cleared by the high level committee and Karnataka Udyoga mitra, the petitioners were asked to obtain the 22 consent of the Karnataka Pollution Control Board:

proposed project. Thereafter, it is developments such as issue of-1 under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) 144-2004 indicating the and the copies of these are"'pz'*o§ciuced at Annexure~G and H respectively 'petition.

9. it is also that they have received a from the board provisional cost of land proposed of the schedule to the preliminaryanotification;0issued under Section 28(1) of the 0 V."'A§t;¢d,,e;ro5rks"oiit toll?'lv13,47,42,612/~ and the petitioners averellapojn to deposit this sum of 2' 13,47,42,e12/-. It ap_peavrs,.V2A.ft'hle petitioners though grumbled the cost for vv"'a(:qpuisitio'n, nevertheless, remitted the entire amount of ? a._l'13,4'-?:'l,42,612/-- by means of Cheque along with its letter

-dated 13--4u2004. it is also the version of petitioners that 24 such letter being on 25~--4~2005 addressed to the_4bo_ard.,_ in particular pointing out that there was no interirn stay order that had been granted... inthe pending W]? No 48345 of 2003 and e\'%_ein';afterfiointiingtbut that the state governmenﬂviafter having thee' deposit towards the cost ofVAiaeiqi1_is'i~tion.'of--.thev.i§proposed land in terms of Seetio1i"_h2{'1}.ii3Vfv bound to comply with therefore the Writ Petitiofiéﬂﬁgi-."*Wi remedies of the petitioners; - 7;»

12. It aﬁieiidentalty that in between some of the .V1'.§in"deA.owne'1's_V_VhVad dfiled writ petitions before this court 15 of 2004, challenging the legality of the l;'5reii.rninaAr_y'-iiotitieation, but the said writ petitions came

--V to he as per order dated 24w1iw2004 [Copy at it V' '2_jAi1r1-egciire-O to the writ petition}. VA It is in this background of the continued inaction on V the part of the state government for not proceeding to / M' and nia7j'oi*ity of them have filed objections petition. One Papaiah has filed an of" lands notiﬁed for acquisition in terms of the Tl"'pr"e.1irriinary notification, seeking for inipleadment in this "petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the 26 under this Act and therefore contending the committee has cleared the project of is the duty of every agency and government to act in aid it resolutions of the high level regard the provisions of Secticnpp 5 of are brought to by my notice. It is the petitioners have filed relief as quoted above.

15. el'a'i'm'ing to be persons whose lands figured 'l:.t'l~1e'i'preliininary notification have also joined theVlp':oe'eed'i_nlgrsll making an application for such W No 671 of 2010, claiming interest in 27 proposed respondent, this appiication is a11owed"e:n*dg:"'ti1e appiicant is permitted to come on record as riespondeunth 17 and learned counsel for the petitioners_.is"directe~dto ' amend the cause title according1yi.lﬂ_' 1 All

16. Vlfhile second respond:ent--board" filed its statement of objectioi'1.s:l"eVe:n on 25-7-2007, the state government "rievertheiess, the petition is on and after 26* 11-2010 having come to be passe dﬂon --.ciifferc'if1-t. ._ ' -S " 1 V'0I€'iii1'?.'i'il::_Ji)'i". 26.11.2010 _ T?1is"wri_t__p,etition by a person claiming to A the beneficiary of certain acquisition __prot:eef_iings initiated by the State Governments under" t'lieprouisions of the Karnataka Industrial . "~AreasgjDevelopment Act, 1966 [for short 'the Act'] jcr fissuing directions to compel the State Crozjernment to make a declaration under Section is _ 28%] of the Act in respect of lands figuring in V V '*-preliminary notification under section 28[I] of

-the Act to compel the State Government' to proceedfurther in the acquisition matter etc.,. While the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board figuring as second M V, ._::o' do so, 'W2. 12,2010.

" ,_statutory provisions which enable the * ._ _petitioners to have applied under the provisions 29 owners irnpleaded as respondents figuring to 16. However respondent Nos.3 5 ;_. represented by Sri. Venkata Krishna .-and._.Sri"

Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel respectiv--ely_ submits that even respondents oppose-J4 theﬁ. prayer in the petition and have..also¥fi'te§i--..their » statement Qfobjections. Other 1'-espondeénts ar'eL"~ V either not represented .or-have"notﬂled"CQunter'.V; Some other respondents are repres-en"ted--,--v but"

not all. l

3. Sri Venkat-3sh__ D;_odde_ri. "learned AGA appearing jor I3' res__r2ondent"- State, also submits that the p-eﬂ_tion-prayer isfopposed by the Stat€«'C_rO-t)erriin1en_t1;i thatfin' fact the State Govern_rnent1r'ihas., not proceeded ahead by issue of a dectcur-ation__ unajje,r"Sec.tio--n £38 (4) of the Land Acquisittoh.1Act, 1984, that in itself shows that°the,lacqujisttion.'Vlproceedings are not feasible etc. 2 -- .

A ,{t.ttBel'thdtVA'as: it is open to the State G_overnrrient_tofiie their objections if they choose further orders on 2. 12.2010.

012191912 nrr. 2.12.2010 . "Sri Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the petitioriers, is not ready to point out the of Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder, on which heavy reliance is placed by Sri Holla to submit that a writ of mandamus can be issued and g/, 32 provided there are no impediments and such stﬂ)' resistance and irnpediments 5 part of land owners, it is not possible-:j"brV.the."

state government to conclude the .0.eqttisition._ proceedings, as is sought for "by.the--'_4pettt'ioners._f, in this petition and therejore SL3'-bgfA}'i;l'£S:i>t.'I"1_(.C'li'. writ__ f petition may be dismissed. V ' ' " * " '' Sri Vioek Holla. ledrned couns.el'_fo'r, the' petitioners, who has received a copy of E the statement of obje'et'ionsVAnj'iied' o"t2..behdU"roj" the state government}, would ;_iike'=fto "make further submissions in this context :andi"if_'need be even by ﬂing a ri:;ioinder'*,'--vaifidV req_uests2"the matter to be taken «upon 13f12".2~O1.0.'..' . V ibis for orders / hearing onV__1_3»_1"2f2OJ:QVV , " " 3' It is in matter is taken up for further hearing tovdayi. _ .

_17. respon'dent__¢.state government, after considerable and virtually under the pressure of this court'i'for«their:' inaction in not responding to the petition ".avermen'ts, has, at East, filed its statement of objections on v.1:iZ¥20iO, which is noticed in terms of the order passed 8--12~«201O extracted above.

9/ 33

18. Sr: Vivek Hoﬂa, learned counsel for the on his part, apart from having very vehemently"

the Writ petitioners have statutory""I"ight for .l_issta.e of a mandamus from this court_' government to proceed proceedings and partic'u_I.ar1y.Ar't'or. of aldeciaration in terms of Section 28(4) the proceedings, of the court the provisions 6,' 12 and 13 of the facilitatioial has my attention to the state years 2001-2006, particular reference islr11aVde..to pm-t5§--4.4 and 4.4. reading as under:

«:.4.,4r DEREGULATION or BUSINESS "} ENVIRONMENT {Th}-:.l.v~'Principal objective of the policy 7jra.§nework for industry in Karnataka will ' be to provide an enabling environment for the growth of industry. One of the key reform measures will be to simplify the regulatory framework to enable ease of doing business in the State. The regulatory framework extant is fraught with a multiplicity of acts and rules, a % 35

3. To reduce the multiplicity Application forms, a Con1biined'»_"t."~;.

Application Form (CAP) sha.lZ--. be introduced.

4. Industries to be!' se_a:regat;ed"A into is X two catffgories: " ' " ' a} A restricted V' .u dangerous' _hazo:rdoiis, and pollutin._q' " -. industries "

Vujfsichfwiilvcoritinue to be subjected' to _ ﬂier .l . norrnal approval p.rocedu're;--and .,All1other_Industries in the eligible for fast _tra'c-.1c «clearafvnces.

V f;Jnder~._ Track Clearance'

-- entrepreneurs will be required to "cornptet'e. the CAP' and submit it to VKUM'; a single window jor I' 'xobtaining necessary clearances from the various departments concerned:

-3'. The Multiplicity of Registers/Records to be maintained under various Acts/ Rules will be simplified and rationalised by introducing Combined Regis iers / Records, wherever possible.

7. The Multiplicity of periodical returns to be ﬁled will be simplified and rationalised by

iii)' 37 India establish a WTO Relay Centre.

relay centre will be managed joiritly u _._. KCTU and VITC from Govt. side--'..and-by the Industry Associations/Bodies Industry side. The ol9jective.of_.Athis ce.1_:»tre--.i'.~ will be the following.

i} Establish a__ credlible extensive database on and its implications'-.jor_ sectors/sub- secto,rs~.__as well" products"'and proces'se's_A that 'likely to be affected This database -will " be made "available I '"«tol." industry jaaellwgiflas policy 44 __to:_enable them to design 3 " ' _a suitable respo nse.' = :r¢+;_ lend" legal, technical and "vaL<iniiinisutratiue support to user ' ,inaliistrie's<.ejj'ected by WTO on the one'..hand as well as to enable _ 'thern'- to make use of the " ''~op_oortunities for export markets. Relay compliance levels expected "'~_~"in terms of quality, technical standards, sanitary and Phyto-

sanitary standards, product and Process methods that. local industry will have to comply with to meet the global standards prescribed under the WTO; and Enabling capacity building in institutions in Karnataka to meet sector specific needs jor quality iv} ./' Vt.' 39 sectors including Industry, Tourism. BT, Agro Food Processing & Inj'"rastruCiufef.i. . with investment of up to Rs.3.0 Crores; ' = .;. Separate orders detailingm i'he;'""

authorities and jurictioning "of y_ the, _a'b_ovVe-T:

committees will be issued.

19. Statutory provisions Sect--iolr1sil6, 12V' and 13 of the faci1itatiolr1~~..Act tinder: V

3. State High'3 fgiearance Comftiit-tee.¥"""* V' ' (1) __The ?ISi_ate _'C;()U€'i"Ti.';'tl'E?T1lf may by 'ri;ottfiCation» c'o'i:.si'iiu*te'*,a" single point .... cl*earan;{:é3 C_oI1TlITllI€€..€'VVV_F3lalled as State Higli ;i.evel"«V.._ Clearance Committee A * members as may be " specified therein."

; 4, _ The "Committee shall examine and C ' Vconsicler____U.":e proposals received from any V entrepreneur relating to any industrial

-_'*l_an'd----,other proiects to be set up in the with an investment of rupees ﬁfty 'fzrores and above in each case.

'bx 3 ~.« (3) Member of the Committee shall personally attend the meeting and in case he is unable to attend the meeting, he may depuie a senior level officer to attend the meeting with a written authorisation to take appropriate decision in the meeting. év/i "State Level Single Window Clearance

1) The State Government may by notification 40

4. Functions of the Committee.-

(.1} The Committee shall meet at such""'t"in1::~'S' 5 _._l and in such places and shall such' ' procedure to transact its business may be prescribed. 5 ' V V ' (2) The Committee shall '--._exam'inpe-_ t'h'eV V proposals for setting any einduustriall; undertakings referretl.tgto in sub:section"'(2} of section 3 and shailytake a tlecisiongand communicate its" = cltecision "to the entrepreneur and. concerned departments or aut'horiti'esz..within such time as niaube_pre'scr.ibecl. 1 ~

5. Iéldwezgfs of the, ;. Cotn'rnittee.- The iCommi'tteeg the ﬁnal authority in grartting approL5als_"for_§the projects placed "before "fit; The approvals given by the ._ Cornmittee"'s_h'all* be binding on all the rconcernedlidepartnients or authorities and "c-tgsuchdepartments or authorities, shall issVueV.lt"t1e"vreq'uired clearances within the stipulated time and subject to compliances "by thelvlentrepreneur undertaking of the =_*pr'ovistons of the applicable Central or "State Acts and the rules made there ' ffunder.

Committee.-

constitute a single window clearance committeejbr the State called as the 'State Level Single Window Clearance 5%."

it (2) la)

(b) (C) {d} 42 to carryout investment pron1otional"~«._'"".iA activities.

to render necessary policy formulation' "for indusgtrialfl ' J progress, to guide and assist entrepreneurs toil set up industriesryin the..State'., to combined lapplicationttform to the-_ .Tent1'iep::;_-eneitrs 'and also to receive the jo~rm;s fro-rnwV.tl't.em and to varrange" - required C clearances from ' 'vdepar=:tm_en,ts ~and.jf authorities within s~tipitlated secretarial support to the "level Ctearance Committee, V l , State' 'leyel Single Window Clearance we V l'Sin_gte V V . Com}init'tee.

Co_rnrnitte.e and the District level Window Clearance lltcfpronioie environrnentfriendly and clearer technology and production practices, to perform any other function as may be entrusted to it by the State Governments.

The State level Nodal agency shall also perjorm functions referred to in sub- section {1 ) and in addition prepare and '_prox_I1'sio:1_1;is of t].:ie'--iA,c_t_,H which is an enactment legislated to "--._usIi'er in development of areas as industrial areas and the lwfacilitativorl Act being the latest piece of legislation and for A the entrepreneurs who are desirous of setting up industries, with the main and sole object to help for prompt setting up of such industries, particularly with the 43 regularly update an entrepreneurs providing complete particulars relating'-to,' 5 _.__ (1') State and Central Ind ._

(ii) Procedure to ob_tairt...ilt1he--i_ .re_lq1.tired.__l clearances from the C£epartrrtent.ar1ci..:_"'~.. "

authorities -

(iii) information orili'inaustrial'status 'and advantages e;f£sti_rtg in the St'Ctte;"

(iv) Salient featztres and the rules rn'ad.e:"thereur1der"apgalicable to ; ' 'iTICt=LLS trial Limiter'-takijrtg, and (1.); oti2er- _Vinfo:'ii:atLoril' useful to the 3: ,7"ieritregarerteurs, '

20. Hollal,'V1e.a4rned.i:c'0.u'nsel for the petitioners while drawing attention .to.l._thle:_fstate industrial police and the provisions'.l~l'tiof.5'the facilitation Act, submits that the . done" acqu'isitionlVof'lland for setting up its industry, it is 9' other statutory functionaries and the vlg.implen.1ewn"tation of the project, but on the Contrary, with a._lt'hle'--officials of the board and the state government acting it exactly the opposite viz., by not taking the proceedings 44 creation of what is known. as single window the high level committee acting for creation of single window agency, entrepreneurs, it shouid be taken:itha:t.A_iwlheln'olnce pg level committee has resolved project should be cleared, oth'5:..'V¢§hVer._pauthorities in the state or even statutoryllbodiesv 'llilie1the';:res_pondent~board, pollution the government etc., all resolution of the high level committeeVandgshitiuldjl'aletiveljrparticipate for the project proposeﬁi. being implemented; that the basicgneed lfor._:la'p.;'ojectl"like that of the petitioners, being deri)'-a1'trI1_e11tts.~~'iof the stat.e government should all act for initiated by issue of a prelirninary notiﬁcation, to its logical gjr 46 amount by way of demand draft. along with thei-rﬂplletter dated }.8--1»2006, it is not open to the and also the board to rescile fron3~itl1ei.r the land and hand over it to the statement of objections ﬁled any impediment or cannot began the linactiion on the part of the state board having forwarded the a declaration in terms of the only impediment placed that the land owners are not the lands, is nothing short of a lame ,cxcuse;" t.hat.wh.e-r1 the state government is exercising ﬁitsg 'statu'tor""y,powerlwis bound to act in consonance with Vsgtalfu.to1;yi'dprovisions, the present defence for the inact_ion,__v'is.riot either tenable or acceptable and therefore Jhasp_ strongly urged for allowing this writ petition by _' 'issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus as prayed for. 47

22. Learned counsel for the petitioners would that the principles of promissory est0ppelv.liV's':.r:"' recognized in law in terms of the E' Court in the cases of CORPORATION vs M/S [AIR o it 1983 so 848, '1m3o--AFGAN AGENCIES LTD [AIR STATE OF PUNJAB vs NEsf:tfz.E ;:N12:.»§; LTf3l{f2QQf4): 6 sec 465].

23. I lliaranahalli, learned Advocate "with Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, learned _0:nl the state government, Sri Sab'ara_d_,¢learned Counsel for the respondent- Venkataltrishna, learned counsel for third Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel for rtgsponderit and Sri M V Vedachala, learned A tor 1713* respondent, who have all very vehemently arid stoutly opposed the petition and urged for dismissal of the Writ petition.

24. On behalf of the state, submission of Haranahalli, learned Advocate General is no doubt true that the state government the proposal at the initial stages, V' petitioners was never assurance; that acquiriflg rlandllt.:lfdj«t..._theit'benefit of the petitioners and for _:oi'l:--tfi.ii§ii"project was only subject to no impediment for the and was subject to the irripeldiment for the acquisition of the land 'and A:ti1e"la:ndV~"owners very strongly opposed the apequisitiori proceediiigs and having pointed out that l oiftheni thelrriseives had developed the lands in Accguecstionffor even industrial purpose and are having their own'«.._ind_ustVryAand such other activities, and therefore the Jstate governrnent found it not feasible to go ahead with the _' acquisition proceedings and therefore has now resolved it "not to go further with the acquisition proceedings. and as indicated in the statement of objections, proposed to drop 49 the acquisition proceedings and therefore the prayer:"'the writ petition cannot be acceded to and of the writ petition. V' V

25. Submission of Sri Basavaraj.__ Counsel for the respondent;b'oa'i=d not that the board haq pursuzmt to the directions of the state ifgjgeﬂ 0bjectj0ns/ representations":~Awere owners and persons was shown that there was a matter of fact, it was found '.»Aof.ibothe'ri"'projects of the land owners themsevlves been' Cieared by public authorities and thernse}.yes embarked on such development not feasible to acquire the Very lands for the .purpose of the implementation of the petitioners' :p.mprQ_§eet"and therefore it did not go ahead with the _' firiaiiiation of the proposed acquisition proceedings and, i "therefore urges for dismissal of the writ petition. It is the 50 further submission of the learned counsel respondent--board that the state governrne._nt"'ai1i~d__V':_ board encountered genuine and substantialfhurdles for taking possession of the land' eonoiusion of the acquisition'p.1;oceVedings.' his submission, learned .re--s;')ondent~board relies upon the decision-zxof.t1&1e Court in the case of SPECIAL BOMBAY vs M/S 1ss?:sc'dd2421 1, particularly the judgment:

If' the 'Gat*ernrneini'-- reluctant to go ahead with the acqu,i;siti'o.ri"'in view of these genuine di1'fca!.t1'es, it._ca.ri hardly be blamed. We see no :just'ificatioAn"to direct the Government to acquire "7:the'iand and..em};3ark on such a venture. We are _ az';<:¢« _Cgf_ the opinion that the fact that the

- " «Go.vern.rrze-nt exercised the power of withdrawal after-'._»the'vwrit petition was filed does not spell V 'mala'fides, once the existence ofcircurnstances, w3._1§ich,<""in our opinion, justified the Government's decision to withdraw is acknowledged.

.' 'Submissiori of learned counsel for the respondent~ T " "board is that with this enunciation of iaw by the Supreme 51 Court, though was in the context of the proVisio_'"ns'*.vof Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, attracted to the present situation: arid "of mandamus as sought for by issued, notwithstanding th'e~.4D";eliance. ' the principles of promissory .estopp'el'. " -- _ up

27. Sri M V VVedachalaV,ilvAl.l.:'counsel for 17*"

respondent, pointing out the statement his client, adopts the state government and the board_,l' that reliance placed on the principles of es_to'p'lpell' is a misconceived; that in fact no promise been held out by the state board for the beneﬁt of the petitioner;

that""n.ei~ther:'the provisions of the Act nor the provisions of facilitation Act have enabled the government to hold .l ogltllpirortiises of the nature as, perhaps, is claimed by the petitioners; 1.6:. the act of accepting deposit amounts to ./ §/,/ 52 holding out a promise that it will acquire iands by the petitioners for the purpose of hand over the same; that the two enactments does not government to acquire private~v:.ia'npds public ' purpose, when the priv'a'te"'i§ndividua1 and therefore the estoppel, assuming that extent in law in terms of the by the learned counsel for ndoihapiplication in the present situation and' that the Writ petition is only to pbe4R'disn1issed- terms of the judgment of the i . ''':'3up1'ei1j.;x%'~Coi1rt in thedvcase of GODREJ 82. BOYCE [supra].

1 of Sri Vedachala is that identification of iarids to__'bc.'acqui1'ed that too not by the state government Jor the board, but by private individuals even prior to _' embarking upon initiation of acquisition proceedings and T "in going ahead with the acquisition proceedings by 5 3 invoking the provisions of the Act is virtually of the provisions of Section 28(2) of the Act, fair and proper opportunity being: it ' interested persons in the land and if acquisition of the landa fapffvftoregonew' conclusion, this stratutorxv a farce and such cannot be the statutory provisions that the facilitation for some expedient g' be fore encouraging entrepreneurs but it can never be said that such resi.iltsVVcan'-be'. achieved at the cost of violating foverluooking statutory provisions and sacrificing the land owners and therefore submits that the"*sowcfalieclpromissory estoppel cannot operate to the Vjbehrefit of the petitioners to compel the government or the fbgoaidf to complete the acquisition proceedings and if a writ "of mandamus is to be issued it will only amount to giving §// 54 complete g'o~'oy to the requirement of Section 28(2j!.:.'of. the Act.

29. it is also submitted by sri petitioners' industry is nothing interest and assuming that ttiejpetitihoiiersembark' on setting up some not'h'ing"v§ short of promoting private famiiv of this nature, no required under the provisicdnsdijiof. private land by the state a public purpose. In fact, it «if the state government has stopped short._of' declaration in terms of Section da'28v[4}a.of"i'th'e,iAct,Avitmdis not because of the inaction, but tV}fi'e:'.:iiecessity and the fact situation revealed th_at~..the' government could not act for issue of a V. 'declaration, as no public interest, in fact. is involved for _' a dec1a.ration etc. P'\.a'4'/-

30. Learned counsel for 17*" respondent that a writ of mandamus will be issued only a breach of statutory duty by a -~p'u'b]_ic cannot be said that there is any 2 present case vis~a-vis a in"

favour of petitioners etc.~.__' It thlat"'the§ principle of law is that no Without a violation of "being pointed out by the the petitioners not havi11g;:a"n)lV7 at'..alVl',vlv:submits that no case is made oat issueniandamus and therefore urges for disrnissal' tl1~e'writ petition. 'V31, Sri.l:L,_:S»_Venkata Krishna, learned counsel for third Vsiubrnits that the principle of promissory estohppelfi lcannot be called in aid. particularly as the ",:geveernrn'ent is always expected to act in public interest;

-' the concept of public interest involves interest of all "citizens; that it also includes the interest. of private land a?

-"'.i_vcon._ve:niepnce of""«priv'ate individual entrepreneurs or using its statutory powers and had over lklaw does; not even enable or recognize holding out a '"it)ro>rri'i«se of this nature, it is a misnomer to think that the government or the board had held out a promise to the petitioners either by mere acceptance of the amount 56 owners and more so when their lands are be compulsorily taken over by the state governrnent its statutory power and in a situation' of at v the affectation to private land than the affectation if ar;'vV"--.to an. proposes to set up or vvho for his / her project or industry _by some other private individua1S_, estoppel is not really" instance, no state governmentcan or assurance in favour of arlytppf "thel or entrepreneur that it will acquire lands of vanydpriviate persons to the liking or to the such'dlandsxitostcprivate entrepreneur/industrialists; that the yacht "Has vEo"i~wl%iAetii1er thev~--petitioners have made out a case for eissue' o'f«a'iw1"itV mandamus as is sought for. In so far V'-»Conven§i_o}nal prerogative writ, as is understood in the p."<;ons_titutional law as has developed in England, a writ of .. hyvmelandamus is issued only when a right of a person or a V citizen is denied or taken away by the inaction on the part 57 deposited by the petitioners or because of=~.44s2o_i:ne communication made between the petitioners3'_:o'n"t'l:i--e_'"one _ side and the state government and the boarti etheu "

while examining the feasibility of.acquieit.io.n'i~pioeejediiige already initiated, and therefore subrriits petition is only to be dismissed..."

32. It is in the bac]::g'roL1ndl__VVo:f .s"u:ehf_'submissions and pleadings on .jf'pigt.itioners and the respondents, petition is required to be examined andii§:iiispo«sed..po'f».,._ .

33. T he simple' question for examination and answer is as'i_ssue_ofi'a 'writ of mandamus is concerned, which is a 58 of a public authority/ statutory authority, wh.ichVl_i a corresponding public duty to act. but has such duty.

34. Sine qua non for issue of alwrit of In'andamt1s';vt is; existence of a right, statutory°'o.r"otherwise'in favour of a person who approaches' the ciouVrt"fo_i'.issue of the writ.

35. In so far i l are concerned, while it may have embarked on it'~is'lnot the function of this court to'~e§ia_mine or possibility or genuiness or bona 'of 'project, while that aspect is not and it"is---«assumed t.o be factually so for the :.le:..<;anj1ining this petition, that the project is a bora¢;1V_/'id€.oIi.§:',ll. a practical one etc.. the question is not so T7-'«4___V'-»much what kind of project the writ petitioners have rpi"opo--sed to set up, but what kind of right particularly, a .,statut:ory right petitioners have and the existence of which has to be examined, in the context of an existing inaction 59 on the part of a public authority having a correspo_nding duty.

36. Though Sri Vivek Holla, iearrieapp tile petitioners, has drawn my at.te11ti0_n;'A*At_o provisions of the facilitation these V provisions which e1i1abl:e;s__ to positively seek for acquisition in their piece or parcel of land by the§'.~gt:§§,§« for exercising its statutory enactment viz., the KIAD Act.

37. While statutory'..'i'pi'ovisions referred to and relied ._Vupo'iji3'«:by_pAthe leai"ned_.Counsel for the petitioners, no doubt, pi*escr_ib.esl awpi"ocedu'1*e and the manner in which the state the so--calted high level committee set up by ''._the state';. governrnent, may go about its functioning that "'-'necessarily, does not mean or enables a person to apply under this Act for acquiring a particular piece of land by using state's power under the provisions of the KIAD Act. 60

38. While it is true that and as submitted by counsel for the petitioners that uI1d€I7I"

Acquisition Act also, the state for the beneﬁt of companies, wh;atV_' the present situation is Acquisition Act but in the background of facilitation

39. Under .the acquisitlionllof land becomes for a public. government wants to developlthe'areaasiganlii1du.strial area through its agencies or boardslfignitialliy by" prescribing the boundaries of the g_ areawsought tolb'e.de_ve-loped and later on embarking upon acq1iisitit.oi1.._of parcels of land in furtherance of the scherne eniiiseiged within the industrial area, it is all done 'pin gelneral and in the larger public interest and not viswa«~ fTvis"l'a. private individua}. The moment the state government or the board embarks on an adventure or rather misadventure to acquire private lands in the name p_ facihtatioia "a.ss_u_ming that it aims at such facilitation, can OnEy4V'be«.ryfor__cutting down the different administrative ",.'"7ith' ..blu:_reaucratic lethargy and impediments being A ":f:leger3:;1a3"y in our country and if the government was intending to out down red~tapism and usher in an era of efficiency and prompt action/service, while that is 61 of public purpose, for the benefit of a private i11d§v'id:i:iai',Vor a private family concern, the very requiremerzpof acting for the benefit of thepiiarger disappears and existence of a pu'1'pos.€ benefit of a larger public land' Vl':*--so'ciety is"

immediately lost and" remtaiiisfa public purpose. Benefit for family Whether by using or or otherwise can never be chiara_ct~erised toffbe"a fpubilic purpose.

40. 3/lloreover,"lV'V'th.:e'i facilitation in favour of entreprene'u_rs orV'industri_a1ists under the provisions of the irripediments and bureaucratic hassles, particularly what 62 laudable, that cannot be equated to the efforts on of either the state goverriment or of the for private individual beneﬁts todeven. industrialists in the name of facilitation their applications for a got by to the statutory to be fulfilled as mandated of the KIAD Act.

41. All adinir1-ist-ra':tive-actiofis'and' statutory provisions are ametiablejjto j'i§:;d--icial'revieW"by superior courts in the eXercise".of Writ ju'risdictio--n; Such administrative action or legislative a"ctioi1_a-.rel'--Valv.fays tested on the touchstone of 'JV"=theV-loorlistitutionlal'"provisions and the relevant statutory l.pi't.)viseioi1.sd case of administrative actions and at times, efvieii on the touchstone of want of legislative 3"""".__V"competence on the part of the particular legislature the law.

42. Ultimately, in situations of the presentj"'natu*re, enabling a person like the petitioners to get at a price to be fixed by a public" V' short of state administering its private individual. WheneVelr'srt:ate be administered/distributed.A' acting in a fair manner and in immediately springs into actinnp1'to,;tlre Article 14 of the Constitution blroofding omni presence, compelfliné tolalwavlslllplrovide equal opportunity to all the state embarked upon administratilonlofanylstate largesse. ln a situation of this l"r1aVtlu"rl'e.i..,'k;x;iin_iningVlllan individual application like that of petitio11eirs.? for acquiring private lands in the owri'ersl1_'ip,o'fA private individuals, which, the petitioners Jrnight have found convenient or suitable for setting up _l t'he'ii7project, which can, nevertheless, be achieved even "Without utilization rather Inis--utilization of the power of state government under the provisions of the facilitation been taken by the state government or the high ieve] it concept of facilitation is only to facilitate expediency 65 court for issue of a writ of mandamus. petitioners do not even have a statutory right _a'n'd through examination of the statutory provis..i.o'ns"-referred.i to by the learned counsel for find any enabling provisionsin«.favouii_of the: 2 applying to the governrnent ltheltglovelrnment to acquire any particular area of land in private ownership vpby exercising its statutory statutory duty, a Writ of from this court.

44. scope for issue of a Writ of mand.amxuslliii si.tuatiloii'.lof this nature. The argument of ill-conceived in a sittiation where a otherwise, does not exist and a right cannot v__be.Vc.lairned by the mere factum that some steps

--."l€'V(l)lI'i'-1I1:ll'['[€E3 for facilitating the project of the petitioners. it tooany «statutory provisions, the principles of being stretched to the extent of 1 corriplelli:ng,iA st.ate government to perform acts in iolationor in contravention of the governing the statutory '.'_llprovislions, is not and cannot be an argument in favour of "the petitioner to result in a benefit in favour of the 66 and not to facilitate things which are other\Nise'jr1otg:'.legal or not enabled in law. Such cannot be the of the word 'facilitation' and theijefore either the so--called facilitation to say that the action taiieflfandélf llsorne statutory authorities V other Virtually resulted in a promislel by the state government the"i'ill--ipetitioners is not an acceptable as pointed out by the learnedlvcourisevlv assuming that there was a is none in the present use) and, ,a.ssuniin.g 'it7' to'- so, it being not relatable or petitioners at the cost of larger public interest state 67 adhering to laws and statutory provisions in itse1fjis"a(:t on the part of the state to further the interest. _ V p

45. In the present case and in the judgments relied upon learned.vpeounseiwfor the" V petitioners do not advance 'p--eti.tioners for issue of a Writ of situation and therefore the pprejsent Vpffdismissed, levying cost of of ??' thousand only] on the petitiorterus; '._o'f"t'he respondents 1 to 17. Cost he before this court within four weeksffi'o_rrivtoday on such deposit. respondents

-'VV,A-(are V-i._ée3:;::11itted tofvvtwitvhdraw the amount through their "4vfn_i_i.;he event of failure on the part of the peti't.i_one1's:tfodeposit the cost within the stipuiated time, "thep registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the respondents, for recovery of the Cost, as thfough it is a decree passed by a civil court. 68

46. Writ petition dismissed.

RE: W? No 30309 OF 2010 32, WP No 1 o93.:3eiV--oﬁ'i'T;éo'o7:----

47. we No 30309 of 2010 is als.oAeby4the'.ireV'r3r.--Vpet'itif}ners in we No 23084 of 2005, which preliminary hearing and was' '-.eﬁ.fjo'u'1'itering' difficulties for listingthe m&atter"_:'fof'-»e. pre1ir'ninaI'3r hearing due to defective/inconipthiettett the petition and otherwise of the learned counsei rnatter is now listed along with wP"No'i2.;'308§i'iiggf %

48. have sought for the fo11oWingreiief:'v X L :[ssue"civvWriit ofCertiorari or any other Writ'. ' _ Order or Direction qttashing the impugned ,riott'J"i{:ation bearing No. CI 586 SPQ 2008. V 31.08.2010 produced at Au_i'iNEXURES passed by the First 'Respondent;

it is 4_ ii.VV" Pass any other Writ. Order or Direction as this Hon'bte Court deems fit under these facts and CiI'CLtfTtStCU1C8S of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

l V' 'vested right' in anyllllolfl acquisition proceedings and a right property becomes Vested only when the time before. In so far as the subject land is Concerned, .llit._Vis-- uurndisputedly in the ownership of respondents 3 and 4

-mid assuming that they have sold or transacted even in 69

49. Sri Joshua H Samuel, learned counseig petitioners. submits that there is a slight feature in this petition and it is sought for is in the context of a notiﬁcation issued in terms Clauses Act. 1897, Vissued:i'"by'lr.:'l*liei-nstatle"goyerninent. withdrawing from acquisition respect of an extent of 3 No 33 of Iblur Village. taluk, owned by responclentsri [respondents 9 and 10 in Wt:

50. In thel"firstv.ir1stance. the petitioners cannot claim a person ac~q_uires title to the property and not at any point .ﬁ'anyx'i'righ"t, statutoriijrior otherwise, it is (1 jortiori so that claim any vested right in a matter of have atone point of time figured in the notification issued Section 28(1) of the Act.

violation of the preliminary notification. as issued by the state government proposing such iand for a pubiie purpose.

ground and argument does not pp in the present situation for this court has found fault~..yVith:i"t'he.:':'niannerAof eéiercise of statutory provisions J and the board, as e1a}ao'ra_t'e1yVddwhi1e dismissing WP No filed by the very petitioners. it amounts to abuse and rnisduspeof .p:o*iver.

51. Beppthat 'ivt.v"Inay,i.iisJhen the petitioners do not have this"««.natu'red'.T~vAis-a--vis such lands, which, perhaps, might 7.1

52. It is also relevant to notice here that one owner viz.. fourth respondent in WP No 2308-iﬂof:

himself fiied we No 10933 arid" haS_> it t ;

following prayer:

1'. to issue a notiﬁcat-ton.gunde'r.sectiondélnlofl the Karnataka Industrial Area I)eveloprnent~ Board " A'Ct_." -- . excluding" the Pei1'tioner's '*--.lana'-_ £;3'ear'vingg"iSy.No. 14, measuring 2 acres'j3£t 'situated at Ibbalur Village, :fBan_gq,lore a South Taluk, fron1"t..sth--e =i_nd.;us~tria.l ."G_'L'F€tC_t__,_fl included in Anxnexitre = __D 0 E all dated t.16.;?O_.2oo4. " .-- * it; or in 7':_thelﬁitlternaiiue, to issue an ' 2 endorsfe;rzen't--.,_""'--. to the petitioner «V comrnurt..it:ating"«. "the decision of the Gouerriniernt dated 21.02.2006 to drop the a"cquisttion"- proceedings of the land bearii-tgV__S__LA;g.. No. 14, measuring 2 acres 39 = ' gatntas, situated at Ibbalur Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Urban 'V District and grant such other relief as this '7Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the '-circumstances of the case as per his request in the representation dated 15.06.2006 and 21.05.2007 as Annexures --«~ G and H. llwhile a Writ of marldamus to compel the state '4"gHgovernmer1t either to acquire or not to acquire [a land]

72.

cannot be issued, in the wake of discussions in WP No 23084 of 2005. wherein it is acquisition of subject iands for the therein being not a proper orvlegaitilproceedingifas pg powers are sought to be for the benefit of private..VigndiVi'duaijs' i/jfami13i«in"the name of public purpose, the cannot be allowed to with the state in their statement of objecticvinsttbeiore does not propose to go ahead proceedings by issue of a declaration of: Section 28(4) of the Act, the itvpreiiminaryt" notiﬁcation is not more required to exist for 1 and no need to aliow that to stand in. isolation; any purpose or objective to be achieved it _uand.c_therefore instead of issuing a writ of mandamus as for by the petitioners in both these petitions, a writ "of certiorari is issued and the preiirninary notiﬁcation is quashed. I 74 a certiﬁcate in favour of the petitioners, for recove1'y?o»f the cost, as though it is a decree passed by a civii made absolute.

RE: WP No 3252 of2006:

56. This petition is also of. "oi2imers"

whose lands were proposed undei" the Very same preliminary vA'_'.::.di_scussed while dismissing position is similar to the ii\ipl:i\IEi-:'§1o933 of 2007, but with the the land owners have also soughtfor the preliminary notification.

57.v..«3_Heince, in"'--the____wake of the discussion made above, this ..pet,ition_is___also allowed in part and the preliminary notiﬁoatviodnfjirnpugned is quashed by issue of a writ of 'wV_'certioi:ai*i«.,_ with cost in favour of the petitioners against the A V~?f1'eslpondents 3, 4 and 5 at the rate of ? 5,000/-- (Rupees five thousand only} each. Cost shall be paid or deposited before this court within four weeks from today and on 75 such deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount through their counsel. In the event of to deposit the cost within the stipulated time, directed to issue a certificate in favour of~vthe"'~0etitione1'*S;.. for recovery of the cost, as though it deeree'-passed ;by a civil court. Rule made absolute to this extef1'tL.Aj

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court