Karnataka High Court
M/S Westbury Hospitality Private ... vs The Secretary State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16804 OF 2009 (BDA)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.22352 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION Nos.19662 OF 2009 AND 20624-20640 OF
2009 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.9669 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.7096 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.12469 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.12496 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.15176 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.15178 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION Nos.18768 and 18769 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.12439 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION Nos.34711-34713 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.7358 OF 2009 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.7097 OF 2009 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.15177 OF 2009 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.7352 OF 2009 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.11943-947 OF 2009 (LA-BDA)
WRIT PETITION NO.11873 OF 2009 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION NO.18713 OF 2009 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION Nos.21613-21614 of 2009 (BDA)
2
IN WRIT PETITION No.16804 of 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Westbury Hospitality Private
Limited,
A company registered under the
Provisions of the Indian Companies Act
having its registered office at
No.1012-1014, Antriksh Bhawan,
22, K.G.Marg, New Delhi - 100 001,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Agarwal. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Uday Holla, Senior Advocate for Shri. Suraj Govindaraj,
Advocate for Aamstel Law Associates, Advocates )
AND:
1. The Secretary,
State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S. Building,
V.V.Road,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
3
Represented by its CEO and
Executive Member.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavana,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General for
Respondent No.1
Shri. G.S. Kannur, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Shri. H.
Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.4 )
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned Government
order dated 28.2.2009 Gazetted on 20.03.2009 vide Annexure-A
to the extent of lands reserved by the respondents for the
petitioner's project as per the Government Order dated 10.11.2008
vide Annexure-G and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.22352 of 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Celestial Developers,
C/o. Alphons Kannanthanam,
Fathima Church Road,
Kochi - 682 020, Kerala State,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
Sri. Chander Prakash Sharma. ...PETITIONER
4
(By M/s. Narayana Reddy and Associates, Advocates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development,
Vikas Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West Extension,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Having its office at 3rd Floor,
Khanija Bhavan (South Wing),
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
Shri. H. Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government order
dated 28.2.2009, vide Annexure-J in so far as the petitioner's
lands are concerned and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION Nos.19662 AND 20624-20640 of 2009
5
BETWEEN:
M/s. RNR Promoters and Developers
Private Limited,
No.1223, 21st Cross, 4th Main Road,
7th sector, H.S.R. Layout,
Bangalore-560 102,
Represented by its Managing Director
Y.N.Munivenkatappa,
Son of P. Nanjundappa,
aged 59 years. ... PETITIONER
(By Shri. N.S. Sangolli, Advocate)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. State Level Clearance Committee,
C/o. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
3rd Floor, Khanija Bhavan,
(South Wing) 49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
6
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General for
Respondent No.1
Shri. H. Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
******
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.009 passed by the respondent as per Annexure-A
insofar as it directs the inclusion of Sy.Nos. 29/1, 29/2, 30, 31/1,
31/2, 31/3, 32/1, 32/2, 32/3, 33/1, 114/3, 115/5b, 116/3, 116/4,
116/6, 116/7, 116/8 & 123/1 of Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, measuring
33 acres 1 gunta, which is subject matter of the approval granted
by the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee under the
Facilitation Act vide order dated 30.3.2007 produced at
Annexure-D.
IN WRIT PETITION No.9669 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Inesh Realtors Private Limited,
a Company registered under the
Provisions of the Indian Companies Act,
having its registered office at
No.41, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. K.V.Bhuvanendra. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Suraj Govindaraj, Advocate for M/s. Aamstel Las
Associates, Advocates)
AND:
7
1. The Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S. Building,
V.V.Road,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and Executive Member.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavana,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. H. Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Government
order dated 28.2.2009, produced at Annexure-A, to the extent of
lands reserved by the respondents for the petitioner's project as
8
per the Government Order dated 27.5.2008, produced at
Annexure-G and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION NO.7096 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. Cornerstone Ventures Private Limited,
a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its registered office at
No.540, 3rd Floor, CMH Road,
Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560 034,
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr. B.P. Kumar Babu.
2. Mr. B.P. Kumar Babu,
Son of Prabhakar Reddy,
Aged about 38 years,
And at No.540, 3rd Floor,
CMH Road, Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 560 034. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. M. Dhyan Chinnappa, Advocate for M/s. CrestLaw
Partners, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
9
Sankey Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
having its office at 3rd Floor,
Khanija Bhavan (South Wing),
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government order
dated 28.2.2009, passed by the first respondent, vide Annexure-A
to the extent of the lands specified in the approval granted by the
State Single Window Clearance Committee vide letter dated
13.11.2007, so far as petitioner concerned only and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.12469 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Mantri Geo Structures Private
Limited, a company registered
Under the Provisions of the Indian
Companies Act, having its
registered office at No.41,
Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. K.V. Bhuvanendra. ...PETITIONER
10
(By Shri. Suraj Govindaraj, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
V.V.Road,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and
Executive Member.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavana,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. C.N. Sangolli, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
11
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Government
Order dated 28.2.2009 vide Annexure-A to the extent of lands
reserved by the respondents for the petitioner's project as per the
Government Order dated 27.5.2008 vide Annexure-G and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.12496 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Mantri Geo Structures Private
Limited, a company registered
Under the Provisions of the Indian
Companies Act, having its
registered office at No.41,
Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. K.V. Bhuvanendra. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Suraj Govindaraj, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
V.V.Road,
Bangalore.
12
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and
Executive Member.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavana,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. H. Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Respondent No.3 - served)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Government
Order dated 28.2.2009 vide Annexure-A to the extent of lands
reserved by the respondents for the petitioner's project as per the
Government Order dated 27.5.2008 vide Annexure-G and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.15176 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Sobha Developers Limited,
13
a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered office at No.E-106,
22, Sunrise Chambers,
Ulsoor Road,
Bangalore - 560 042,
Represented by its
Authorised Signatory
N.B.Ashok Kumar. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Suraj Govindaraj, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
V.V.Road,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and
Executive Member.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavana,
14
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Government
Order dated 28.2.2009 vide Annexure-A to the extent of lands
reserved by the respondents for the petitioner's project as per the
Government Order dated 27.5.2008 vide Annexure-G and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.15178 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Sobha Developers Limited,
a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered office at No.E-106,
22, Sunrise Chambers,
Ulsoor Road,
Bangalore - 560 042,
Represented by its
Authorised Signatory
N.B.Ashok Kumar. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Suraj Govindaraj, Advocate)
AND:
15
1. The Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
V.V.Road,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and
Executive Member.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavana,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4 served and unrepresented)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Government
16
Order dated 28.2.2009 Gazetted on 20.3.2009 produced at
Annexure-A to the extent of lands reserved by the respondents for
the petitioner's project as per the Government Order dated
27.5.2008 vide Annexure-G and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION Nos.18768 AND 18769 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. M.M. Residency,
Flot No.A3, Viphul Spring Manner,
at Site No.409, 11th Main,
9th Cross Road, BEML Layout,
Bangalore - 560 066,
Represented by its
Proprietor Sri. M. Muniyappa Reddy,
Son of Late Muniswamappa.
2. M/s. M.K.R. Courts,
No.164, New No.320,
Thubarahalli,
White Field Post,
Bangalore - 560 066,
Represented by its
Proprietor Sri. M. Krishna Reddy. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. H.S. Dwarkanath, Advocate )
AND:
1. Government of Karnataka,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Represented by its Secretary,
4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
17
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. State High Level Clearance Committee,
C/o. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
3rd Floor, Khanija Bhavan,
(South Wing), 49,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.2009 vide Annexure-A in so far as the property bearing
Sy. No.58/1 of Tubarahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, measuring
2 acres described in schedule A to this Writ Petition belonging to
the first petitioner and the property bearing No. Sy. No.58/2 of
Tubarahalli Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, measuring 2 acres 6 guntas
described in schedule B to this writ petition belonging to the
second respondent petitioner which were the subject matter of the
approval granted by State Level Single Window Committee vide
Annexure-L and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION NO.12439 OF 2009
18
BETWEEN:
M/s. Mantri Sierra Structures Private
Limited, a company registered
Under the Provisions of the Indian
Companies Act, having its
registered office at No.41,
Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. K.V. Bhuvanendra. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
by its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
V.V.Road,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and
Executive Member.
19
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavana,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Ravi G.Sabhahit, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. K.M. Nataraj, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Government
Order dated 28.2.2009 vide Annexure-H to the extent of lands
reserved by the respondents for the petitioner's project as per the
Government Order dated 27.5.2008 vide Annexure-F and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION Nos.34711-34713 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. S. Suresh,
Son of sri. S.L. Srinivas Reddy,
Aged 39 years,
401-A, Queens Corner,
Queens Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Mr. S.V. Gopal Reddy,
Son of Sri. S.L. Venkataswamy Reddy,
Aged 55 years,
401-A, Queens Corner,
Queens Road,
20
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Mrs. Nandini Alva,
Wife of Late Mr. Jeevaraj Alva,
Aged 47 years,
No.24/10, M.M. Reddy Road,
Mariyanna Palya,
H.A.Farm Post,
Bangalore - 560 024. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Shri. Rajendra M.S.,
Advocate for M/s. Holla and Holla, Advocates)
AND:
1. The Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S. Buildings,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and
Executive Member.
21
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Represented by its
Managing Director,
Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate and Shri. I.G.
Gachchinamath, Advocate and Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2
Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.2009 vide Annexure-J in so far as it relates to the lands
belonging to the petitioners which are set out in the schedule and
etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.7358 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Cornerstone Property Investments Private Limited,
a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at
No.540, 3rd Floor, CMH Road,
Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560 038,
Represented by its Legal Head
Mr. Kiran Poonacha. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Ganapathi Hegde, Advocate for M/s. Dua Associates,
Advocates)
22
AND:
1. Government of Karnataka,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Represented by its Secretary,
4th Floor, Vikas Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore- 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. State High Level Clearance Committee,
C/o. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
3rd Floor,
Khanija Bhavan (South Wing),
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
Shri. G.S. Kannur, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.2009 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-A, in so
far as it directs the inclusion of the Sy. Nos. mentioned in
Annexure-F1 which is subject matter of the approval granted by
23
the High Level Committee under the Facilitation Act vide
Government Order dated 27th May 2008 at Annexure-F and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.7097 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Skyline Meadows Private Limited,
a Company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its registered office at
No.11, Hayes Road,
Bangalore-560 025
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Kiran Poonacha. ... PETITIONER
(By Shri. M Dhyan Chinnappa, Advocate for M/s. Crestlaw
Partner, Advocates )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
represented by Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikas Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Sankey Road,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
Having its office at 3rd Floor,
24
Khanija Bhavan (South Wing)
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General for
Respondent No.1
Shri. G.S. Kannur, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.3 )
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
Dated February 28, 2009 passed by the first respondent vide
Annexure-A to the extent of the lands reserved by the respondents
in the Government Order dated 27.05.2008 vide Annexure-G and
etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.15177 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Sobha Developers Limited,
a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at
No.E-106, 22 Sunrise Chambers,
Ulsoor Road, Bangalore - 560 042,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
N.B. Ashok Kumar. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Suraj Govindraj, Advocate)
25
AND:
1. The Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
V.V.Road, Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Industrial Development Board,
14/2, Rashtrothana Parishat
Building, Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its CEO and Executive Member.
4. Karnataka Udyog Mitra
Represented by Managing Director,
Khanij Bhavana,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. G.S. Kannur, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
26
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Government
Order dated 28.2.2009, Gazetted on 20.3.2009, produced at
Annexure-A, to the extent of lands reserved by the respondents for
the petitioners Project as per the Government Order dated 27.5.08,
produced at Annexure-G.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.7352 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M/S. Trishul Buildtech and Infrastructures
Private Limited (formerly known as
M/s. Trishul Developers, a Partnership Firm)
No.9, Ali Askar Cross Road,
Off Cunnigham Road,
Bangalore - 560 052,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr K. Prakash Shetty. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. K Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate )
AND:
1. Government of Karnataka,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Represented by its Secretary,
4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001 .
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T Chowdaiah Road,
27
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
By its Commissioner.
3. State High Level Clearance Committee,
C/o. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
3rd Floor, Khanija Bhavan (South Wing),
49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore- 560 001,
By its Chairman. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent Nos.1 and 3
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate and Shri. G.S. Kannur,
Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.3 )
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.2009, passed by the respondent vide Annexure-A, in so
far as it directs the inclusion of the Sy.Nos. mentioned in
Annexure-F1 which is subject matter of the approval granted by
the High Level Committee under the Facilitation Act vide
Government Order dated 19 May, 2008 at Annexure-F and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION Nos.11943-947 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. M/S Adarsh Developers,
a registered Partnership Firm having
its office at No.10,
28
Vittal Malya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
represented by its Partner
Sri B.M. Jayeshankar.
2. M/S Rajakar Developments,
a registered Partnership Firm having
its office at No.10,
Vittal Malya Road,
Bangalore-560 001,
represented by its Partner
Sri Nischay Jayeshankar.
3. M/s. Akarsh Realty Private Limited,
a Company registered under the
provision of Companies Act, 1956 and
having its office at No.10,
Vittal Malya Road,
Bangalore- 560 001,
represented by its Director,
Sri B.M. Jayeshankar.
4. M/s. Orchids Apartments Private Limited
a Company Registered
under provision of Companies Act 1956 and
having its office at No.10,
Vittal Malya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
represented by its Director
Sri B.M. Jayeshankar.
5. M/s. Shivakar Infrastructure,
a registered Partnership Firm
having its office at No.10,
Vittal Malya Road,
29
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Partner,
Sri B.M.Jayeshankar. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. K.G. Raghavan, Senior Advocate for Shri. N.N.Harish,
Advocate for M/s. Aaren Associates )
AND
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikas Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Sankey Road,
Bangalore.
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
having its office at 3rd Floor,
Khanija Bhavan (South Wing)
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General for
Respondent No.1
Shri. G.S.Kannur, Advcoate and Shri. G. Shanthappa, Advocate
and Shri. H. Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. T.N. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate for Respondent No.3 )
*****
30
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) in
so far as the extent of the lands reserved for the petitioners in the
Government Order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexures-E, E1, E2, E3
And E4) and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.11873 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Terminus Park India Private Limited,
A company incorporated under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956 and
having its registered office at
No.1, 7th and 8th Floor,
Industrial Layout, 7th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095,
represented by its Director
Mr. J. Vijay Reddy. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. K. Arun Kumar, Advocate for M/s. Crestlaw Partners,
Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
represented by Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
31
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Sankey Road,
Bangalore,
represented by its Commissioner.
3. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
having its office at 3rd Floor,
Khanija Bhavan (South Wing)
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
represented by its
Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
Shri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.2009, passed by the first respondent, vide Annexure-A
to the extent of the lands reserved by the respondents in the
Government Order dated 27.5.2008, vide Annexure - D and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION No.18713 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Sree Balaji Service Apartments,
2491, I Floor,
17th Main, HAL II stage,
Bangalore,
32
Represented by its Proprietor,
M. Chandra Reddy. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. N.S. Sangolli, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
by its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
4th Floor,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. State High Level Clearance Committee,
C/o. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
3rd Floor, Khanija Bhavan,
(South Wing), 49,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. H. Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3 - served)
*****
33
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order
dated 28.2.2009, Bangalore passed by the respondent as per
Annexure-A in so far as it directs the inclusion of Sy.No.63 of
Thubarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore which is subject
matter of the approval granted by the State Level Single Window
Clearance Committee under the Facilitation Act vide order
No.KUM/SLSWCC-37/AD/617/2007-08 dated 13.11.2007
produced at Annexure-D and etc;
IN WRIT PETITION Nos.21613-614 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M.V.Homes,
A Partnership Firm,
Thubarahalli,
Whitefield Post,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Partners.
a. Sri. V. Chandrashekar,
Son of Late Venkatappa Reddy,
Aged about 47 years,
b. Sri. T.V. Rajashekar,
Son of Late Venkatappa Reddy,
Aged about 45 years,
Both resident of Tubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Whitefield Post,
Bangalore South Taluk. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. N.S. Sangolli, Advocate)
34
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3. State Level Clearance Committee,
C/o. Karnataka Udyog Mitra,
3rd Floor, Khanija Bhavan,
(South Wing), 49,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Sajan Poovayya, Additional Advocate General, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for Respondent for
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3 - served)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the relevant records
and quash the Government Order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the
respondent vide Annexure-A insofar as it directs the inclusion of
Sy. No.58/1 and 58/2 of Thubarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore, which is subject matter of the approval granted by the
State Level Single Window Clearance Committee under the
35
Facilitation Act vide order dated 26.10.2007 vide Annexure-D and
etc;
These petitions, having been heard and reserved on
09.01.2013 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are disposed of by this common order, as the issues that arise for consideration are common. The facts of each case are briefly narrated hereunder.
2. In the petition- WP 16804/2009, the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner, along with its group companies, is said to have gained a wide and valuable reputation, in India and abroad, as a real estate developer.
It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government of Karnataka had formulated a policy to invite global investment in industries and infrastructure development from prospective 36 entrepreneurs. It was in order to simplify procedures and to provide an investor friendly environment in the State, and with that objective the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation Act) 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the KIF Act', for brevity) had been enacted. The said Act provides for a State Level Single Window Agency (SLSWA) and a State High Level Clearance Committee (SHLCC) , which are the two authorities that approve various project proposals submitted by entrepreneurs, to whom the invitation to invest had been thrown open. The Karnataka Udyog Mitra (KUM) is appointed, under the said Act to perform as the nodal agency and provide guidance to investors in approaching the Authorities under the Act and to facilitate the processing of their project proposals. There is a "Screening Committee", which would at the threshold scrutinize the project proposal before forwarding the same to the KUM for further action. All projects of a value less than Rs.50 crore would be chanelled to the SLSWA and projects above that value would be tabled before the SHLCC. The SHLCC consists of the following worthies : 37
i) Chief Minister ii) Deputy Chief Minister
iii) Minister for Large and Medium Industries
iv) Chief Secretary of Karnataka
v) Principal Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department
vi) Principal Secretary Finance Department
vii) Principal Secretary Infrastructure Department
viii) Principal Secretary Government Planning Department
ix) Principal Secretary Energy Department
x) Principal Secretary Urban Development Department
xi) Principal Secretary Forest, Ecology & Environment
xii) Principal Secretary Labour Department
xiii) Secretary Kannada & Culture, Information Tourism Department
xiv) Secretary Information Technology Department
xv) Secretary Irrigation Department xvi) Secretary Commerce and Industries Department xvii) Chairman and Managing Director KSIIDC 38 xviii) Managing director KPTCL xix) Member Secretary Pollution Control Board xx) Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member KIADB xxi) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes xxii) Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce It is stated that the tenor of the KIF Act would indicate that if a project once approved by the SHLCC, would be a decision binding on all the Departments of the State government.
The petitioner had submitted a project proposal through the KUM, dated 2-4-2008, to establish "serviced apartments and villas" at Chikkabelandur village , Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The Screening Committee is said to have cleared the proposal , at its Meeting dated 8-4-2008, to be placed before the SHLCC. It is stated that the SHLCC had 39 deliberated on the proposal of the petitioner, at its meeting dated 21-8-2008 , and approved the same.
A formal approval of the project was made by a Government Order dated 10-11-2008 and was duly published in the Gazette Extraordinary , dated 26-2-2009.
It is claimed by the petitioner that acting on the statutory approval, it has put itself in an irreversible position by way financial and other commitments. The petitioner is hence seriously aggrieved by a subsequent government order, issued on 28-2- 2009, rescinding the approval granted by the SHLCC , and the same has been published in the gazette on 20-3-2009.
The reason assigned for such a decision by the Government is that the lands which were earmarked by the petitioner for implementation of the project, on the strength of a joint development agreement with the land owners, is sought to be acquired by the State under the provisions of the Bangalore 40 Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act', for brevity )
3. The petitioners in the connected writ petitions are similarly aggrieved as the sequence of events leading upto the reversal of Orders of approval pertaining to their respective projects, has followed more or less the same course, as is evident from the following brief narrative pertaining to the said petitions. WP 22352/2009
It is claimed by the petitioner that its partners had purchased the lands in Survey Nos.70, measuring an extent of 29 guntas and Survey No.71, measuring an extent of 2 acres situated at Gunjur Village, Vartur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (Now Bangalore East Taluk), under registered sale deeds dated 29.12.2004 and established a partnership firm by name M/s Celestial Developers and decided to set up an Information Technology Park in the said lands by investing Rs.23.60 crore. 41 Therefore, they had approached the third respondent - the SHLCC, constituted under the KIF Act.
The third respondent, after verification of the said proposal of the petitioner - firm, had cleared the said project proposal on 30.3.2007. The second respondent had issued a Government Order bearing No.NAE 71 BB SWA 2009 dated 28.2.2009, proposing to acquire certain lands, including the lands in question, for the formation of the residential layouts without issuing notices to persons whose lands were proposed for acquisition, which was mandatory on the part of the acquiring authority before issuing such Government Order.
WP 19662/09:
The petitioner, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, intended to establish a 'Software Technology Park' and 'Industrial Housing Complex', at Gunjur Village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, in lands bearing Survey Nos.29/1, 29/2, 30, 31/1, 31/2, 31/3, 32/1, 32/2, 32/3, 33/1, 42 114/3, 115/5B, 116/3, 116/4, 116/6, 116/7, 116/8 and 123/1, totally measuring an extent of 33 acres and 1 gunta. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the SHLCC for approval of the project, which was approved by the SHLCC on 23.3.2007.
The said SHLCC had also resolved to recommend to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, for conversation of land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, had on 5.2.2009 permitted the conversion.WP 7096/2009
Petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner no.2 is an individual and is the promoter of petitioner no.1. The petitioners intended to set up an Information Tech Park, in Hadosiddapura, Sarjapura Road, Bangalore East Taluk in Survey Nos. 31/1, 54/2, 55/1, 55/2, 58/1, 58/2, 58/3,59/1 and 59/4, totally measuring 14 acres and 9 guntas, with an investment of Rs.45.74 crore.43
The petitioners had approached the SHLCC for approval of the project, which was approved on 13.11.2007.
The petitioners were granted permission to convert the lands from agricultural to non-agricultural user.WP 12469/2009
It is claimed that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a part of the Mantri Group. The petitioner intended to establish an integrated township for Information Technology/Bio-Technology, Information Technology enabled services and commercial structures at Panathur and Bogenahalli Villages, Varthur Holbi, Varthur, Bangalore East Taluk, totally measuring an extent of 111 acres and 1.5 guntas.
The petitioner -company had submitted necessary application dated 25.8.2007 with a detailed project report, which was approved by the SHLCC on 28.8.2007. In furtherance of the 44 same, a Government Order bearing No.ITD08 MBA 2008(11), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 was issued and the same was Gazetted on 2.4.2009.
WP 9669/2009
It is claimed that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a part of the Mantri Group. The petitioner intended to establish an Information Technology Park and Bio-Technology Park and a Commercial Establishment at Kanekandaya Sorahunase, Varthur, Amani Bellandur Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, to the extent of 150 acres.
The petitioner - company had submitted the necessary application dated 25.6.2007 with a detailed project, which was approved by the SHLCC on 28.8.2007.
The petitioner was informed that its proposal was approved by the SHLCC by its letter No.KUM/SHLCC/AD 336/07-08 45 dated 3.4.2008 and in furtherance of the same, a Government Order bearing No.ITD08 MBA 2008(3), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 was issued and the same was Gazetted on 2.4.2009. WP 34711-713/2009 The petitioners herein claim to be associated with M/s Inesh realtors Private Limited, in a joint venture with the petitioner in WP 9669/2009. The grievance of the petitioners is common with the petitioner in WP 9669/2009.
WP 15176/2009
It is claimed that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and intended to establish an Information Technology/ITES/Bio-technology Park with commercial and residential space, at Nagondana Halli and Hagadur villages of Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, in an extent of 44 acres 25 guntas.
46
The application of the petitioner was approved by the SHLCC on 28.9.2007.
The petitioner was communicated of the approval and the necessary Government Order bearing No.ITD08 MBA 2008(19), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 was issued and the same was Gazetted on 26.3.2009.
WP 12496/2009 The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a part of the Mantri Group, the petitioner wanted to establish an Integrated Town ship comprising of Infotech, Bio Informatics, IT Enabled Services and Commercial Units with a residential colony at Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Varthur, BangaloreEast Taluk, in an area of 136 acres and 24 guntas.
47
The petitioner - company had submitted its application with a detailed project report, dated 25.8.2007 and was duly approved by the SHLCC on 28.8.2007.
The petitioner was informed of the approval of the proposal and a Government Order bearing No.ITD08 MBA 2008(12), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 was issued, which is produced as Annexure-G and the same was Gazetted on 2.4.2009. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Government, without considering the approval granted by the SHLCC, had issued a Government Order bearing No.NAE 71, BABHUSWA 2009 dated 28.2.2009, had directed the BDA to acquire the lands for the formation of layouts called "K.C. Reddy layout, S.Nijalingappa layout and D.Devaraju Urs layout", including the lands of the petitioner.
48WP 15178/2009
The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and intended to establish an Integrated Township, comprising of Information Technology Park, residential condominiums and a commercial block at Mullur and Chikkabellandur Villages of Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, in an extent of 132 acres.
The petitioner - company had submitted an application with a detailed project report, dated 12.9.2007 and the same was approved by the SHLCC on 28.9.2007.
The petitioner was informed of the approval of the proposal by the SHLCC and in furtherance of the same, a Government Order bearing No.ITD08 MBA 2008(18), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 was issued and the same was Gazetted on 26.3.2009. 49 WP 18768/2009 AND WP 18769/2009
The first petitioner is a proprietary concern of Sri.M.Muniyappa Reddy, who is the absolute owner of the property bearing Survey No.58/1, of Tubarahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring an extent of 2 acres. The said property is converted and the conversion certificate is produced as Annexure-D. The second petitioner is the proprietary concern of Shri. M. Krishna Reddy, who is the absolute owner of the property bearing Survey No. 58/2 of Tubarahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring 2 acres 6 guntas. The said property is converted to non-agricultural use and the conversion certificate is produced.
WP 12439/2009
It is claimed that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with an 50 objective to carry on business in architecture, erectors, construction of buildings, houses, apartments, structures etc. The petitioner, desirous of establishing an Information Technology Park, Bio-Informatics Park, and commercial establishment, to establish Integrated township for Information Technology/Bio Technology and Information Technology enabled services and commercial complexes with residential infrastructures in 330 acres, 29 guntas of land in Survey nos. of Ramagodanahalli, Hagadur, Kanekandaya, Sorahunase, Varthur, Amani Bellandur villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, had submitted an application for approval of their project on 25.08.2007, to the fourth respondent, Karnataka Udyog Mitra, who was appointed as a nodal agency to interact and assist the investors, pursuant to the invitation by the first respondent.
It is further claimed that the SHLCC granted approval of the project dated 13.3.2008 and a Government Order dated 27.5.2008, 51 was issued according approval of the petitioner's project. The BDA had no objection for giving up the lands. WP 7352/2009
The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business as contractors, builders, developers and in infrastructure sector. The petitioner had applied to the Karnataka Udyog Mitra under the KIF for establishing a 'Integrated Township' comprising of Information Technology Park, Hardware Park and Residential Condominiums and common Facilities'' in 129 acres of land at Gunjur, Balagere, Varthur Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk vide Annexure C The project of the petitioner was placed before the SHLCC constituted under the KIF Act, which was approved and it was decided that the BDA had to exclude the above said lands from the lands proposed for acquisition for the formation of BDA layouts and that a policy decision had to be taken by the Government. A government order was passed detailing the 52 infrastructure facilities granted to the petitioner vide G. O. No.ITD 08 MDA 2008(02), Bangalore dated 19.5.2008. The petitioner, based on the approval of the project, invested considerable amount of money and also applied to the KIADB for allotment of the land.
WP 7097/2009
The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner with an intention to set up an integrated town ship with Information Technology Park and Hardware Park, Residential Condominium with civic amenities and common facilities etc., had identified land to an extent of 104 acres for the purpose of setting up of the above project in and around Varthur Hobli, Varthur, Bangalore and had approached respondent No.3 with the above proposal. The project of the petitioner was placed before the SHLCC, which was granted on 21.7.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued a 53 Government Order bearing No.ITD 08 MDA 2008(4), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 approving the project with certain conditions. WP 7358/2009
The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the companies Act, 1956 in the business of development of real estate projects. The petitioner in the interest of establishment of Integrated Township, comprising of Information Technology and Hardware Parks, residential Condominiums with common facilities in 80 acres of land at Thubarahalli and Siddapur Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, placed its proposed project before respondent no.3 and the same was approved on 28.9.2007 and the KIADB had recommended to acquire and allot 80 acres of land to the petitioner on consent basis.
It is claimed that the first respondent issued a Government Order bearing No.ITD 08 MDA 2008(17) Bangalore, dated 27.5.2008 and permission was granted to establish the project. 54 The petitioner, on approval of the project, had taken steps to obtain consent of the land owners and conversion of the said lands and had invested considerable amount of money. WP 15177/2009
The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and wanted to establish an Information Technology Park, residential condominiums and commercial blocks at Balagere and Panathur villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk to the extent of 130 acres.
The petitioner - company had submitted an application dated 21.8.2007, with a detailed project report to respondent no.4 and the same in turn was placed before the SHLCC for necessary approval and the project proposal was approved by the SHLCC on 28.8.2007.
The petitioner was informed that their proposal was approved by the SHLCC and in furtherance of the same, a 55 Government Order bearing No.ITD08 MBA 2008(10), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 was issued and the same was Gazetted on 21.8.2008.
WP 11943-47/2009 Petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm and a part of Adarsh group and had identified various extents of land comprising of 186.63 acres at 159 different survey numbers of Bhoganahalli and Doddakannelli villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
Petitioner No.2, which is also a partnership firm and part of Adarsh Group, had identified various extents of land comprising of 138 acres and 37 guntas in Ghattahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore.
Petitioner no.3 is a company and a part of Adarsh Group and it had identified various extents of land comprising of 266.63 acres in different survey numbers of Gunjur, Panathur and Balagere Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. 56
Petitioner no.4 is a company and a part of Adarsh Group and had identified various extents of land comprising of 215.19 acres in Hado Siddapura, Chikkanahalli, Chikkanayakana Halli and Kodathi Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
Petitioner No.5 is a partnership firm and a part of Adarsh Group and had identified various extents of land comprising of 172 acres in different survey numbers of Sreeramapura and Ghattahalli village, Anekal Taluk and Doddanagamangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
The petitioners conceived the projects for setting up of Integrated Township, consisting of Information Technology Park, residential condominium and commercial blocks and they approached respondent no.3, by filing applications and the said applications alongwith their projects were placed before the SHLCC for consideration and approval. The SHLCC, after considering the scope of the project, granted approval with various conditions to be fulfilled by the petitioners. 57
Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued a Government Order bearing No.ITD 08 MDA 2008(7) Bangalore dated 27.5.2008, approving the project with certain conditions and the said government order was published in the Karnataka Gazette. WP 11873/2009
The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and conceived the project for setting up of Information Technology Parks, residential apartments and commercial buildings identified in various extents of land comprising of 226 acres in and around Balagere, Amani, Bellandur, Khane, Gunjur, Varthur Hobli, Varthur, Bangalore.
The petitioner company had submitted an application dated 7.9.2007, with a detailed project report and the same was placed before the SHLCC, which was approved.
The petitioner was informed that their proposal was approved by the SHLCC and thereafter, a Government Order 58 bearing No. ITD08 MBA 2008(15), Bangalore dated 27.5.2008 was issued.
WP 18713/2009
The petitioner is a proprietary concern and is the owner of land bearing Survey no. 63, measuring 2 acres 7 guntas situated at Thubarahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. The revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner, as a and owner and he is also in possession of the said land.
The petitioner wanted to establish a 'service apartment' under the name and style of 'Sree Balaji Service Apartments' and had made an application to the Karnataka Udyog Mitra, the matter was placed before the SHLCC constituted under the KIF Act, wherein the project was approved and the committee decided to grant conversion of the said land and accordingly, a notification dated 23.10.2008 was issued granting permission to convert the land from agricultural user to non-agricultural user. In view of the 59 approval, the petitioner has invested a large amount of money for the above said purpose.
WP 21613-14/2009 The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its partners. It is contended that the father of the partners was the owner of land bearing Survey No.58/1 and 58/2, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas situated at Thubarahalli, Varthur Hobli, Banglore and after partition, the said land had fallen to the share of the petitioner
- firm and the partners wanted to establish a hotel in the said land. The petitioner - firm had made an application to the Karnataka Udyog Mitra for approval of its project and the matter was placed before the SLSWCC, constituted under the KIF Act, wherein the project was approved by the said committe. Permission was granted for conversation of the land use from agricultural to non- agricultural.
60
It is therefore the common grievance of all the above petitioners that inspite of their projects having been approved including the respective lands earmarked for their project - which were said to be proposed for acquisition - and the BDA having ultimately indicated to the State Government to exclude the said lands from the acquisition proceedings the same being directed to be acquired by the impugned Government Order would jeopardize their projects, as the question of procuring alternative land would spell financial ruin and would render their respective projects unviable - in view of substantial investments made in procuring the consent of land owners with whom they have made arrangements.
4. Shri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP 16804 and WP 34711- 13/2009, leading the arguments for the petitioners would contend:
That the policy of the State government to promote investment and its invitation, on the assurance of an investor 61 friendly environment, said to have been put in place with the coming into force of the KIF Act, had particularly prompted the petitioners to approach the State as aforesaid. The uncertainty of suitable land being provided after acquisition, for implementation of the project even if the project proposals were approved by the competent authority, was not a factor at all. The land had been identified before hand and the petitioners had the consent of willing land owners ready to offer their lands for the respective projects and had even entered into agreements with the petitioners in this regard. The issue of the proposed formation of residential layouts and the proposed acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands- and the same being a possible impediment to the project proposals, was raised by the Commissioner , Bangalore Development Authority , in the very first instance - when the SHLCC deliberated on the project proposals. It was in the face of the said objection that the SHLCC resolved to permit the petitioners to establish their projects in the land identified.
Especially since the Notifications proposing any such acquisition 62 for the purpose of formation of any layout was yet to be issued and therefore the Committee had opined that the projects could be considered subject to the final opinion of the Urban Development Department. This was as per the Resolution of the Committee dated 21-8-2008.
It is brought to the attention of the Court that the BDA had subsequently arrived at an informed decision that there was no objection to exclude, from the proposed acquisition of lands earmarked for the purposes of formation of the KC Reddy, Nijalingappa and the Devaraj Urs residential layouts, the lands identified and approved for projects cleared by the SLSWA, to an extent of 151 acres 24 guntas and an extent of 2,311 acres and 36 guntas of land identified and approved for projects cleared by the SHLCC. This is recorded as per the Resolution No.27/ 2009, dated 21-1-2009, of the BDA . It is in spite of the same that the impugned Order is issued, which is clearly inexplicable.
It is pointed out that the State government has not chosen to file any counter to the present petitions. And even more 63 significantly, inspite of this Court having repeatedly called upon the State to make available the record pertaining to the subject- the same was never made available to the court.
It is contended that the respondents cannot circumvent the statutory approvals granted. It is on the basis of the same that the petitioners have arranged their affairs in the certain expectation of successful implementation of their projects. The power conferred on the respondents is a power coupled with a duty. The respondents are hence bound to abide by the positive representations made in granting the statutory approvals.
The petitioners having proceeded to make elaborate arrangements, especially pursuant to the approvals duly published in the gazette, involving substantial financial input apart from the commitment made with various agencies and third parties, in preparation for the implementation of the project and the incalculable man hours invested in the effort -is not capable of being compensated in damages .64
Case law relating to Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation is cited in support of the petitions.
Hence it is contended that the petitions be allowed in terms as prayed for.
5. Respondent No.2 - BDA has filed its statement of objections in WP 7097/2009and has stated that it had passed a resolution proposing to acquire 2134 acres and 18.5 guntas in respect of formation of K.C.Reddy Layout, 2806 acres and 9 guntas in respect of the formation of S.Nijalingappa Layout and 1976 acres 2 guntas in respect of D.Devaraj Urs Layout, measuring a total extent of 6916 acres and 29.5 guntas for the formation of the above said layouts.
Respondent no.2 had sought permission to issue preliminary notification for the said total extent of land and had further requested the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, to indicate with regard to 2463 acres and 20 guntas, which was approved by the SHLCC. The Urban Development 65 Department, by its order dated 28.2.2009, granted administrative approval to the Respondent No.2 to acquire the entire extent of land for the formation of the aforesaid layouts, including the lands approved by the SHLCC. The Commissioner, BDA, in the proceedings of the SHLCC, had informed that a policy decision has to be taken by the Government, since the land proposed for acquisition for the formation of layouts by the BDA, included the lands approved by the SHLCC for the projects of the petitioners, to which the Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries department had pointed out that private developers also need to be allowed to operate since only the Government agencies could not fulfill housing requirements of the public and the BDA with due diligence should develop layouts so that, the layouts developed by the private parties can be integrated with a larger plan area.
Hence, right from the inception itself the respondent 2 BDA had objected the acquisition of lands by KIADB in favour of 66 the petitioners and since the respondent no.1 had allowed respondent no.2 - BDA to proceed with the acquisition, the petitioner cannot make any grievance of the said decision.
6. Having regard to the above sequence of events it is for the State Government to justify the impugned order. Shri Sajjan Poovayya, the learned Additional Advocate -General, representing the State Government does not dispute the sequence of events or the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioners. It is stated by him that the record made available to him is in total disarray, which he did not think it fit to place before the court. He has, however, contended that the limited question in the present writ petition is whether the State Government was acting within the scope of its power in having passed the impugned order and incidentally whether the petitioners had any vested right which had been infringed, in seeking to plead promissory estoppel or any legitimate expectation which is said to be denied to the petitioners or such other third party. It is sought 67 to be contended that on legal principle the petitioners have no vested right to claim the reliefs prayed for. It is pointed out that even according to the petitioners the project proposals were approved with the land component remaining to be acquired, absolutely, and permitted to be diverted for the implementation of the project and such user. The formal acquisition of the land by the State and the necessary change in land user to be permitted by the competent authority are mandatory steps which are contemplated under independent statutes and cannot be pre- supposed by virtue of the approval by the SHLCC. The approval was tentative and subject to the final opinion of the Urban Development Department. It is contended that notwithstanding the resolution by the BDA, it having been decided finally that the larger public purpose would be defeated in permitting the projects to be implemented over the subject lands, the decision of the State Government cannot be faulted.
Several authorities are relied upon in support of the State's stand.
68
7. As is evident from the above narrative, the point for consideration would turn on the legal principle whether in the above circumstances the petitioners can claim a right in seeking to enforce the assurance of the State Government, that would be evident from the approval granted to the project proposals, to facilitate the acquisition of the lands identified for the respective projects and to also follow up with the necessary permissions to put the land to a user other than as contemplated by the Planning Authority under the relevant legislation.
In this regard a useful reference may be made to the relevant case law cited by the parties.
In Commissioner, BDA v. State of Karnataka (2006 (1) Kar.LJ 1) a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the case of a company which had approached the State Government at a global investors meet with a proposal to establish an Information Technology Park for computer software industries. Its proposal had been approved by the SHLCC, inclusive of the 69 land earmarked for the project by the company. The very lands were sought to be acquired under the BDA Act for the formation of the Arkavathy residential Layout. The plea of promissory estoppel claimed by the company was negated by the learned single judge.
The division bench has held thus :
"92. The law on the point is well-
settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Nestle India Limited, has held that, the promissory estoppel long recognized as a legitimate defence in equity was held to found a cause of action against the Government, even when, the representation sought to be enforced was legally invalid in the sense, that it was made in a manner which was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed by statute. In Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies , where it was held that, under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise 70 solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the Judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arise. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh , it was held that where the Government makes a promise known or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee acting in reliance on it, alters his position the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. Whatever be the nature of the function which the Government is discharging, the Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it.
The only recognized limitations of this principle are, firstly, since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. But it is only if the Court is satisfied, on proper and 71 adequate material placed by the Government, that overriding public interest requires that the Government should not be held bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by it, that the Court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government. Secondly, no representation can be enforced which is prohibited by law in the sense that the person or authority making the representation or promise must have the power to carry out the promise. If the power is there, then subject to the preconditions and limitations noted earlier, it must be exercised. Thus, if the statute does not contain a provision enabling the Government to grant exemption, it would not be possible to enforce the representation against the Government, because the Government cannot be compelled to act contrary to the statute. But if the statute confers power on the Government to grant the exemption, the Government can legitimately be held bound by its promisee to exempt the promise from payment of sales tax.
93. In view of the aforesaid law, it is clear the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct. A clear and 72 unequivocal promise knowing and intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee and such acting upon the promise by the promisee so that it would be inequitable to allow the promise to go back on the promise. If the promisee acting in reliance of such representation alters his position the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government. However, since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. The Government should place proper and adequate material before the Court showing the overriding public interest, which compels them not to honour the promise. It is equally well-settled that no representation which is prohibited by law can be enforced. However, the Government must have the power to carry out the promise. If the statute confers power on the Government to enforce the promise made and there is no prohibition in law, then the Government is bound by such promise.
94. In the Global Meet the Government made a promise to all the investors to invest in Karnataka and they would provide the 73 necessary infrastructures, such as land, power, water supply and other concessions and incentives. Acting on the said representation the first petitioner made a request for 53 acres of land to set up a IT Park. High Power Committee constituted by the Government which includes all Departmental Heads passed an order granting the request made by the petitioners. Thereafter, KIADB was directed to identify lands to meet the requirements of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, petitioners negotiated with the owners of the land with the full knowledge of the Government; paid consideration; purchased the lands with the fond hope of immediately starting the project by avoiding litigation and delay. In the meanwhile KIADB also identified the lands. When the impugned notifications were issued notifying acquisition of lands purchased by the petitioners as well as the lands by the KIADB for the petitioners. KIADB wrote to the BDA who is a party to the Government Order to drop the acquisition proceedings. Petitioners also filed a detailed objections to the proposed acquisition. BDA had the jurisdiction not to acquire the land as they have given up acquisition of land to the extent of 580 acres of land notified in the preliminary notification.74
Even though they did not uphold the objections of the petitioners and submitted the scheme for approval before the Government, the Government had jurisdiction to refuse to acquire the land of the petitioners in view of the Government Order and the promise made by them. They also did not act promptly. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the petitioners have altered their position, spent huge amounts in acquiring the land and in making other preparations on the representation of the Government which is in writing and evidenced by a Government Order. Before the Court they neither pleaded nor placed any material to show the overriding public interest which compels them not to honour the promise. In law there was no prohibition to delete the said lands from acquisition. On the contrary the Government had the jurisdiction to give up the acquisition. Therefore, all the conditions requisite for application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel are established and the acquisition of the lands purchased by the petitioners and intended for them is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In view of the discussion made above, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the plea of estoppel is not available 75 against the State is not correct. Consequently, the acquisition of lands in respect of what the first petitioner has already purchased and what is proposed by the KIADB for the first petitioner is accordingly quashed."
In Chairman & MD, BPL Limited v. SP Gururaja, (2003) 8 SCC 567), the apex court was dealing with a case wherein the State had acquired vast tracts of land by recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, inter alia for the purpose of allotment to entrepreneurs for establishment of industries. BPL had proposed a project requiring 500 acres of land . This was approved by the SHLCC to the extent of granting 175 acres of land at Rs.92 per Sq.m. The respondent had filed a public interest litigation questioning the same. The High Court had allowed the petition. Reversing the same the apex court, while addressing the case from different perspectives, has made the following observation which may be relevant in considering the impugned order in the present case on hand:
76
"The State had developed a policy of single-window system with a view to get rid of red tapism generally prevailing in the bureaucracy. A decision which has been taken after due deliberations and upon due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law on the ground that there had been undue haste on the part of the State and the Board. (See Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa ((1991) 4 SCC 54) and Pfizer Ltd. vs. Mazdoor Congress ((1996) 5 SCC 609))"
In State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. ( (2004) 6 SCC 465 ), a decision which has been followed in the above division bench judgment, the development and growth of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is traced which is extracted hereunder for useful reference.
"24. But first a recapitulation of the law on the subject of promissory estoppel. The foundation of the doctrine was laid in the decision of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. in Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay (AIR 1951 SC 469). There, in 1865, the Government of 77 Bombay had passed a resolution authorising the grant of an area to the Municipality rent-free for the purpose of setting up a market. Although possession of the site was made over to the then Municipal Commissioner no formal grant was in fact executed as required by the applicable statute. Acting on the resolution, the Corporation spent considerable sums of money in building and improving the market and was in possession for 70 years during which period no revenue had been paid to or claimed by the Government. At this stage, a demand was sought to be raised on account of rent under the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876. The Corporation impugned the demand by filing a suit. The suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred before the High Court. The High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the Corporation was entitled to hold the land forever without payment of any rent and the Government had no right to assess the premises. The Collector preferred an appeal before this Court. There was no dispute that by reason of non- compliance with the statutory formalities, the government resolution of 1865 was not a factual grant passing title in the land to the Corporation. There was also no dispute that there was no enforceable contract between the State Government and the Municipal Corporation. Of the three 78 Judges, Das, J. held that the possession of the Corporation not being referable to any legal title was adverse to the legal title of the Government and the right acquired by the Corporation to hold the land in perpetuity included an immunity from payment of rent. Patanjali Sastri, J. differed. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. concurred with the conclusion of Das, J. but based his reasoning on the fact that by the resolution, representations had been made to the Corporation by the Government and the accident that the grant was invalid did not wipe out the existence of the representation nor the fact that it was acted upon by the Corporation. What as since been recognised as a signal exposition of the principles of promissory estoppel, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. said: (AIR p.476 paras 21 & 22) "The invalidity of the grant does not lead to the obliteration of the representation. Can the Government be now allowed to go back on the representation, and, if we do so, would it not amount to our countenancing the perpetration of what can be compendiously described as legal fraud which a court of equity must prevent being committed. If the resolution can be read as meaning that the grant was of rent-free land, the case would come strictly within the doctrine of estoppel enunciated in Section 115 of the Evidence 79 Act. But even otherwise, that is, if there was merely the holding out of a promise that no rent will be charged in the future, the Government must be deemed in the circumstances of this case to have bound themselves to fulfil it. ... Courts must do justice by the promotion of honesty and good faith, as far as it lies in their power."
25. In other words, promissory estoppel long recognised as a legitimate defence in equity was held to found a cause of action against the Government, even when, and this needs to be emphasised, the representation sought to be enforced was legally invalid in the sense that it was made in a manner which was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed by statute.
26. This principle was built upon in Union of India vs. Anglo Afghan Agencies ((1979) 2 SCC
409)), where it was said (SCR at p.385): (AIR p.728, para 23) "23. Under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the 80 citizen on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen."
8. On the other hand, Shri Poovayya, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the case of Scindia Employees Union v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 10 SCC 150 to support the action of the State. In Scindia Employees Union, while negating the challenge to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act' for brevity), on the ground that the petitioner before the Court was not a person interested and therefore, notice of hearing as contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the LA Act was not mandatory. On a further contention that the acquisition of land over which a workshop was situated having been directed by the Government to be continued to be operated notwithstanding the request of the Management under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act' for 81 brevity), for closure of the same and therefore, acquisition of the workshop depriving the workmen of the right to their livelihood if the land on which the workshop was situated was acquired, the Court has held as follows:
"It is true that as a consequence of the acquisition of land, the workshop was likely to be closed. The material circumstance to be considered is whether the State is entitled to acquire the land over which the workshop stands. The very object of compulsory acquisition is in exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State against the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land. Therefore, so long as the public purpose subsists the exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be questioned."
Reliance is then placed on Sooraram Pratap Reddy vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, (2008) 9 SCC 552, to contend that the approval of the project proposal did not ipso facto result in acquisition of the land that was earmarked for the 82 respective project. In any event, the State has the choice of determining the larger public purpose and therefore, the State having taken a subsequent decision to acquire the land under the provisions of the BDA Act in order to form residential layouts, cannot be faulted. In this regard, the observation of the Apex Court in the above decision to the following effect, is relied upon.
" It is primarily for the State to decide whether there exists public purpose or not. Undoubtedly, the decision of the State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. In appropriate cases, where such power is exercised mala fide or for collateral purposes or the purported action is dehors the Act, irrational or otherwise unreasonable or the so-called purpose is "no public purpose"
at all and fraud on statute is apparent, a writ court can undoubtedly interfere. But except in such cases, the declaration of the Government is not subject to judicial review. In other words, a writ court, while exercising powers under Articles 32, 226 or 136 of the Constitution, cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Government as to what constitutes "public purpose"."83
Reliance is also placed in the case of Punjab Communications Ltd. vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1999 SC 1801), wherein it is laid down as follows:
"That change in policy can defeat a substantive legitimate expectation if it can be justified on Wednesbury reasonableness. We have noticed that in Hindustan Development Corporation case (1993) 3 SCC 499 : (1994 AIR SCW 643) : (AIR 1994 SC 988) also it was laid down that the decision maker has the choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy. It is, therefore, clear that the choice of the policy is for the decision maker and not for the Court. The legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the Court to find out if the change in policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made."84
Reliance is further placed in the case of Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others ((2004) 6 SCC 765)), wherein it is laid down as follows:
"20. The learned senior counsel then made some attempts to rely on the doctrines of 'promissory estoppel' and 'legitimate expectation'. Doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' has developed as a principle of reasonableness and fairness and is used against statutory bodies and government authorities on whose representations or promises, parties or citizens act and some detrimental consequences ensue because of refusal of authorities to fulfil their promises or honour their commitments. The argument under the label of 'estoppel' and 'legitimate expectation' are substantially the same. The Administration herein no doubt is guilty of gross mistake in including in its development scheme, a portion of land covered by the forest and land with restrictions under the Aircrafts Act. A vital mistake has been committed by the 85 Chandigarh Administration in overlooking the notification reserving land under the Forest Act and the restrictions imposed under the Aircrafts Act, but overriding public interest outweighs the obligation of a promise or representation made on behalf of the Administration. Where public interest is likely to be harmed, neither the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' nor 'estoppel' can be allowed to be pressed into service by any citizen against the State Authorities. In M/s Jit Ram Shiv Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [1981 (1) SCC 11], a two-Judge Bench of this Court by explaining and distinguishing Union of India vs. Indo- Afgan Agencies Ltd., [1968 (2) SCR 366] and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. [1979 (2) SCC 409], observed thus :-
'It is only in public interest that it is recognized that an authority acting on behalf of the government or by virtue of statutory powers cannot exceed his authority. Rule of ultra vires will become applicable when he exceeds his authority and the government would not be bound by such action. Any 86 person who enters into an arrangement with the government has to ascertain and satisfy himself that the authority who purports to act for the government, acts within the scope of his authority and cannot urge that the government is in the position of any other litigant liable to be charged with liability'.
Further, reliance is placed on the case of Ram Pravesh Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others ((2006) 8 SCC
381)), wherein it is laid down as follows:
"15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice.
The term "established practice" refers to a regular, consistent, predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being 87 a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by the courts, for judicial review or administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a "legitimate expectation" of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above "fairness in action" but far below "promissory estoppel". It may only entitle an expectant:
(a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the courts may grant a direction requiring the authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or 88 bona fide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the "legitimate expectation". The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognised legal relationship with the authority. A total stranger unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings with the authority and who has not entered into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly."
The above decisions are cited in support of the contention that the petitioners are not entitled to claim legitimate expectation or plead promissory estoppel.
89
An alternative is suggested while relying on State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ganesh Wood Products (AIR 1996 SC
149), wherein it has been laid down to the following effect:
"THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST:
54. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognised in this country. Even so it should be noticed that it is an evolving doctrine, the contours of which are not yet fully and finally demarcated. It would be instructive to bear in mind what Viscount Hailsham said in Woodhouse Ltd. v. Nigerian Produce Ltd. (1972 A.C. 741):
"I desire to add that the time may soon come when the whole sequence of cases based upon promissory estoppel since the war, beginning with Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947 (1) K.B.
130) may need to be reviewed and reduced to a coherent body of doctrine by the courts. I do not mean to say that they are to be regarded with suspicion. But as is common with an expanding 90 doctrine, they do raise problems of coherent exposition which have never been systematically explored."
55. Though the above view was expressed as far back as 1972, it is no less valid today. The dissonance in the views expressed by this Court in some of its decisions on the subject emphasises such a need. The views expounded in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979 (2) S.C.C.409) was departed from in certain respects in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana (1981 (1) S.C.C.11), which was in turn criticised in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Limited (1985 (4) S.C.C.369). The divergence in approach adopted in Sri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat (1981 (1) S.C.C.31) and Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (1986 Suppl.S.C.C.728) is another instance. The fact that the recent decision in Kasinka Trading and Ann. v. Union of India & Ors. (1995 (1) S.C.C.274) is being reconsidered by larger Bench is yet another affirmation of the need stressed by Lord Hailsham for enunciating "a coherent body of doctrine by the Courts". An aspect needing a clear exposition - and which is 91 of immediate relevance herein - is what is the precise meaning of the words "the promisee.....alters his position", in the statement of the doctrine. The doctrine has been formulated in the following words in M/s.
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (AIR 1979 SC 621 at page 643):
"The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Govt. would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Govt. at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Art.299 of the Constitution."
What does altering the position mean?
Does it mean such a change in the position of the promisee (as a result of acting on the faith of representation of the promissor) that compensating him in money would not be just 92 and equitable to him, i.e., a situation where the ends of justice and requirements of equity demand that the promissor should not be allowed to go back on his representation and must be held to it or does altering his position mean doing of some act, big or small, which the promisee does acting on the faith of the representation which he would not have done but for the representation? In other words, is it enough that the promisee has spent some money or has taken some step acting on the basis of representation, which can be recompensed in money or otherwise? Is it not ultimately a matter of doing equity and justice between the parties - a case of holding the scales even between the parties and deciding whether in the interests of justice and equity the promissor can be allowed to resile from his promise and compensate the promisee appropriately or the promissor ought to be held to his promise and not allowed to go back since such a course is necessary in view of the change in position of promisee? Our view of the matter is probably evident from the way we have posed the above questions. To wit, the rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard and fast rule but an elastic one, the 93 objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. If it is more just from the point of view of both promissor and promisee that the latter is compensated appropriately and allow the promissor to go back on his promise, that should be done; but if the Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice and equity demand that the promissor should not be allowed to resile from his representation in the facts and circumstances of that case, it will do so. This, in our respectful opinion, is the proper way of understanding the words "promisee altering his position". Altering his position should mean such alteration in the position of the promisee as it makes it appear to the Court that holding the promissor to his representation is necessary to do justice between the parties. The doctrine should not be reduced to a rule of thumb. Being an equitable doctrine it should be kept elastic enough in the hands of the Court to do complete justice between the parties. Now, can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be put on a higher pedestal than the written contract between the parties? Take a case where there is a contract between the parties containing the very same terms as are found in the "approval" granted by IPARA (sub-committee) and then the 94 government resiles from the contract and terminates the contract. The promisee will then have to file a suit for specific performance of the contract in which case the court will decide, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, whether the plaintiff should be granted specific performance of the contract or only a decree for damages for breach of contract. It must be remembered that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was evolved to protect a promisee who acts on the faith of a promise/representation made by promissor and alters his position even though there is no consideration for the promise and even though the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract. Surely, a representation made or undertaking given in a formal contract is as good as, if not better than, a mere representation. All that we wish to emphasise is that anything and everything done by the promisee on the faith of the representation does not necessarily amount to altering his position so as to preclude the promissor from resiling from his representation. If the equity demands that the promissor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately, that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands, 95 in the light of the things done by the promisee on the faith of the representation, that the promissor should be precluded from resiling and that he should be held fast to his representation, that should be done. To repeat, it is a matter of holding the scales even between the parties - to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine."
Therefore, the above decision is apparently cited to suggest that the petitioners would have the alternative remedy of seeking damages.
9. On a close examination of the sequence of events and on a conspectus of the case law that is relied upon, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate Shri Holla, the State Government's intention and object in having brought into force the KIF Act, was to ensure that project proposals are approved having regard to the due compliance with the several statutory regulations and to ensure that the project proposal once approved does not face any kind of impediment. It is for this reason that all 96 the Departments of the State Government, apart from other statutory bodies entrusted with statutory obligations are represented in the SHLCC to ensure that any approval granted does not violate the provisions of any Act, Rule or Regulation which may be relevant in the implementation of the project. Insofar as the acquisition of land and the change of land user which would necessarily follow the approval of the project proposal, was possibly the only impediment that was sought to be brought to the attention of the SHLCC in the first instance, by the Commissioner, BDA. However, the subsequent resolution by the BDA to declare that it would have no objection if the lands earmarked for particular projects approved under the KIF Act are left out of the proposed acquisition proceedings for the formation of residential layouts, did not anymore fetter the State insofar as enabling the petitioners to implement the project proposals over the very lands with the formal acquisition proceedings for the said purposes remaining to be carried out in the usual course through the medium of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development 97 Board. However, the volte face by the State Government without any further development being apparent, would certainly render the action of the State Government as being arbitrary. The significant circumstance that the records pertaining to the subject have not been made available to the Court, would also require this Court to draw an adverse inference in holding the decision-making process in this regard having remained opaque and unexplained, would certainly render the decision of the State Government to rescind the approval granted in respect of the project proposals of the respective petitioners as illegal and unreasonable.
The suggestion that even if there was any such unilateral negation of an earlier approval, it was for the petitioners to seek damages is an option that is always available to the petitioners. However, the petitioners having elected to insist on the approval granted being taken to its logical conclusion, it would be incumbent on the State to abide by the approval granted and to take all such formal steps as are necessary, to enable the petitioners to implement their projects. Consequently, the 98 petitioners are entitled to a common relief of exemption of the lands earmarked for their respective projects as not being available for acquisition proposed by the State Government for any other purpose and the respondents are directed to comply with the respective order of approval of the SHLCC in respect of each of the petitioners, as prayed for.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv/KS