Karnataka High Court
Jsw Steel Ltd vs Government Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
Reserved on : 27.02.2024
Pronounced on : 12.03.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10560 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
JSW STEEL LTD.,
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REGD. OFFICE AT JSW CENTRE
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDHRA (EAST)
MUMBAI - 400 051
MAHARASHTRA.
BRANCH OFFICE AT:
6TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGANTORY,
SHRI MANI MANUEL (GENERAL MANAGER).
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.S.R.ANURADHA , SR.ADVOCATE A/W
MS.SABAHATH SULTANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN V.RON, AAG FOR
SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
THE R-1 TO EXECUTE A SALE DEED IN TERMS OF THE LEASE-
CUM-SALE AGREEMENT 28.07.2006 ANNEXURE-G ENTERED
INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE R-1 AND
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 06.05.2021 BEARING NO. CI 352
SPI 2020 ANNEXURE-V AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent/State to execute sale deeds in terms of lease-cum-
sale agreements dated 28-07-2006 and 24-10-2007 entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on implementation of the Government order dated 06-05-2021.
2. Heard Smt. S.R.Anuradha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner is JSW Steel Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the Company' for short). The Company commenced its operations in 1997 with capacity of 1.25 Million Tonnes Per Annum ('MTPA') which was increased in 2003 to 3.8 MTPA in the land allotted. Noticing the increase of production on 12-06-2006 a Government order is issued for allotment of land of 2000 acres for additional capacity of 2 MTPA. In furtherance of the said decision, it appears that the State executes a lease cum-sale agreement on 28-07-2006. The 2nd lease cum-sale agreement 4 was executed on 24-10-2007. After all this, the plant was set up on the land allotted by the State with the capacity of 10 MTPA.
Since then the Company is seeking execution of sale deed.
Between the dates 20-06-2013 and 24-01-2018 recommendations galore for execution of sale deeds. On 03-03-2018 a legal opinion emerges opining execution of the sale deed after the cabinet would clear the project. Pursuant to which, the Finance Department also clears the project fixing the revised price. On 27-05-2019 the cabinet granted clearance for execution of sale deed. Immediately thereafter, the cabinet decides on 14-06-2019 to refer the matter to the cabinet sub-
committee. The cabinet sub-committee studied the proposal and between 22-12-2020 and 04-03-2021 several legal opinions were sought for execution of sale deed. The earlier Finance Department approval of 27-05-2019 for execution of sale deed is affirmed in the cabinet decision of 26-04-2021. A Government order then is issued on 06-05-2021 for execution of the sale deed. The sale deeds are yet to be executed. Therefore, the Company is before this Court seeking a direction to execute the sale deeds.5
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Company would vehemently contend that the land is allotted 18 years ago.
Production has commenced long ago. Steel plants are put up and the fate of the Company still hangs in balance as no sale deeds are executed by the State as was necessary in terms of several decisions of the cabinet. The learned senior counsel would submit that it is the duty of the State to discharge the contractual obligation failing which, this Court has to step in and direct the grievance of the Company to be redressed or else there would be no meaning to the cabinet clearing the execution of the sale deed not once but twice.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General representing the State would though seek to defend the action of non-
registration of the sale deeds, but is not in a position to dispute that the cabinet had cleared execution of sale deeds and would submit that if a direction is issued the State would take the issue to its logical conclusion.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
67. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events and the dates of those events are necessary to be succinctly stated. The Company becomes the beneficiary of allotment of huge packet of lands in Toranagallu and Kurekuppa of Bellary District. What was sought was 2000 acres for establishment of steel plant. On 12-06-2006 a Government order comes to be issued allotting 2000 acres on lease-cum-sale basis in favour of the petitioner/Company. The order reads as follows:
"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹L:121J¸ï.¦.L.2004, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:12.6.2006.
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄ:eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Äèöå ¹ÖÃ¯ï °«ÄmÉqï, «zÁå£ÀUÀgÀ, vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè, §¼Áîjf¯Éè, EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄgÉÃPÀÄ¥Àà UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è F DzÉñÀPÉÌ C£ÀħA¢¹gÀĪÀ C£ÀħAzsÀ-1 ZÉPï̧A¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ««zsÀ ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 2000 (JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ JPÀgÉ) JPÀgÉd«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀħAzsÀ-2gÀ°è «¢¹gÀĪÀ ¤§AzsÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃgÉ '°Ã¸ï PÀA ¸Éïï' DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¤§AzsÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ ªÉÄ:eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Äèöå ¹ÖÃ¯ï °«ÄmÉqï PÀA¥É¤AiÀÄ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄw M¦àUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¸ÀÄ¥ÀzÀð£ÀÄß ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¸ÀĪÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ.
F DzÉñÀªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.2.2005 ºÁUÀÆ 11.10.2005gÀ°è «¢¹gÀĪÀ J®è µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÄ:eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Äèöå, ¹ÖÃ¯ï °«ÄmÉqï, «zÁå£ÀUÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄ, vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè, §¼ÁîjeɯÉè, F PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ¥ÀÆgÉʸÀvÀPÀÌzÉÝA§ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/-
(JA.²ªÀ°AUÀ¸Áé«Ä) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð(PÉÊC) ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊUÁjPÁ E¯ÁSÉ."7
Pursuant to the allotment of land conditions were also appended to the Government order. A lease-cum-sale agreement emerges on 28-07-2006 drawing up several conditions of lease. On 03-02-2007 one more Government order comes to be issued allotting 1700 acres of land to increase the capacity to 10 MTPA by executing lease cum-sale agreement in favour of the Company for lands at Yarabanhahalli, Musenayakanahalli & Toranagallu Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. In 2009 pursuant to the said allotments and lease-cum sale agreements so executed between the State and the Company, the company establishes the plant for an extended capacity of 10 MTPA. Since then, communications galore with regard to execution of sale deeds in favour of the Company. The sale deed were not executed for various road blocks by the State. It would suffice if the story is fast forwarded to the communications dated 8-09- 2017 wherein the Company sought execution of sale deed of 1700 acres on the ground that it has clearance from all wings of the State. The communication dated 08-09-2017 reads as follows:
"JSW Steel Limited 08-09-2017 Vijayanagar Works, P.O.Vdyanagar-583275 Dist.Ballari,Karnataka.8
To The Additional Chief Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department, Government of Karnataka, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
Sub: Execution of Absolute Sale Deed in favour of JSW Steel Limited with reference to 1700 acres land.
Ref: 1) G.O.No.CI 82 SPI 2005, dated 03-02-2007
2) G.O.No.CI 82 SPI 2005, dated 06-08-2007
3) Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement, dated 24.10.2007.
Sir, JSW Steel Ltd., ("JSW") is presently operating 12.0 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) integrated steel plant at Toranagallu, Ballari, being the largest capital investment in the State of Karnataka.
The Government of Karnataka invited JSW to set up an integrated steel plant and assured various infrastructural facilities in the year 1994. JSW set up an integrated steel plant with an initial steel production capacity of 1.25 mtpa. Based on the various approvals from the State Government and with periodical huge capital investments, the capacity has been enhanced to the present 12.0 mtpa. Further, the integrated steel plant expansion up to 16.0 mtpa has already been approved by the Government of Karnataka and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Changes has granted Environmental Clearance for the said expansion.
That JSW's explanation project proposal to increase the capacity to 10 mtpa was approved by the State High Level Clearance Committee in its meeting held on 10-10- 2005 and amongst other infrastructure assistance, 1700 acres of land was allotted to JSW for the expansion project. Subsequently, the Commerce and Industries Department (C & I) executed a Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'Agreement') in favour of JSW on 24.10.2007, with respect to the said 1700 acres of land for a period of 10 years commencing from 24-10-2007.
9It is submitted that, at the time of execution of Lease- Cum-Sale Agreement JSW has paid INR 21,00,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Twenty One Crores) to C & I Department and also INR 20,00,00,000 (Indian rupees Twenty crores) to KIADB towards consideration amount for the land. We have been regularly paying the yearly lease rent of INR 1,70,000/- (Indian Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand) for the past 10 years as per the Agreement. It is further submitted that, JSW has been complying with all the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement and has used the leased land for the only purpose for which it was allotted to us.
It is pertinent to mention herein that the term of the Agreement dated 24-10-2007 will be expiring on 24-10- 2017. Clause 9 of the said agreement reads as follows:
"On complying with the terms and conditions of this Agreement in the manner stated above but not otherwise, the Lessor shall be obliged to execute the sale deed in prescribed form governing the disposal of lands by the Government in favour of the Lessee."
In view of the above and since JSW has complied with all the terms and conditions specified in the Agreement, and in consideration of Clause 9 of the Agreement, we request your goodself to initiate the process for execution of absolute Sale Deed with reference to 1700 acres of land in favour of JSW Steel Limited, for which we will be much obliged.
Thanking you, For JSW Steel Limited, Sd/- Dr. Vinod Nowal, Dy.Managing Director."
(Emphasis added) In reply to the said communication, the Department of Industries and Commerce recommends execution of sale deed in respect of 1700 acres of land. Again, the Company submits another 10 representation to the concerned department on 08-03-2018 seeking execution of sale deed in respect of 2000 acres of land.
The communication reads as follows:
"JSW Steel Limited 08-03-2018 U 6th Floor, East Wing, Raheja Tower, MG Road, Bangalore-560 001 To The Additional Chief Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department, Government of Karnataka, 1st Floor, Vikas Souda, Bangalore-560 001.
Kind attn.: Shri D.V.Prasad, IAS Dear Sir, Sub: Execution of Absolute Sale Deed for 2000.58 acres of land at Toranagallu, Vaddu & Kurekuppa villages, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District.
Further to our letter dated 20-02-2018, we would like to bring the following information to your kind notice.
Based on the Government Order dated 12-06-2006, a formal lease-cum-sale Agreement for an area of 2000.58 acres was executed on 28-07-2006 in favour of JSW Steel Limited (Company) for a period of 6 years. The Company paid a total premium of Rs.18,01,37,700/- as the cost of land, including the lease rent. This amount was arrived at on the basis of the Government order dated 17-02-2005 i.e., Rs.90,000/- per acre, being the cost of the land.
Further the following Clauses 1, 5(a) and (b) in the lease cum-sale agreement is produced herewith:
"1. In consideration of the sum of Rs.18,013,7700 (Rupees Eighteen crores one lakh thirty seven thousand seven hundred only) paid by the Lessee and received by the Lessor as premium representing the tentative cost of the plot of land and of the rent and of 11 the covenants and agreements on the part of the Lessee hereinafter contained, the Lessor hereby demises unto the Lessee all that piece of land known as per attached schedule in village limits of Vaddu, Toranagallu and Kurekuppa, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, containing by admeasurements of 2000.58 acres or thereabouts and more fully described in the first schedule hereunder written and delineated on the Plan annexed hereto and thereon surrounded by a red colour boundary line, together with the buildings and erections now or at any time hereafter standing and being thereon and together with all rights, easements and appurtenances thereto belonging except and reserving unto the Lessor all mines and minerals in and under the said land, or any part thereof to hold the land and premises hereinbefore expressed to be thereby demised (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises) unto the Lessee for a term of Six Years computed from 12.6.2006.... ...."
5(a) The premium indicated in Clause 1 of this agreement represents the tentative costs of land in the event of Lessor incurring the payment of amounts to the land owners over and above the awards made by the acquiring authority by virtue of awards passed by competent court of law or in view of the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 in respect of demised premises or any part thereof, the same shall be met by the Lessee within one month from the date of receipt of communication signed by the Executive Member or any other officer authorized by the Lessor. Further, in the event of Lessor incurring the payment of amounts to the land owners for the malkies and structures existing on the demised premises, the same shall be met by the Lessee within one month from the date of receipt of communication signed by the Executive Member or any other officer authorized by the Lessee.
(b) As soon as it may be convenient, the Lessor will fix the price of the demised premises at which it will be sold to the lessee and communicate it to the lessee and decision of the Lessor in this regard will be final and binding on the Lessee. The Lessee shall pay the balance of the value of the property, if any, after adjusting the premium paid by the lessee, within one 12 month from the date of receipt of communication signed by the Lessor or any other officer of the Lessor authorized in this behalf. On the other hand, if any sum is determined as payable by the Lessor to the Lessee after adjustment as aforesaid, such sum shall be refunded to the Lessee before the date of execution of the sale deed."
Having complied with the conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement, the State Government is obliged to execute an absolute sale deed in favour of the Company.
It may be noted that the Government of India (GoI) had acquired the lands to the extent of 9341.41 acres in the year 1971-72 for setting up of a 3.35 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) capacity integrated steel plant in the name of Vijayanagar steel Limited (VSL). Later on, GoI transferred VSL along with its lands to Government of Karnataka (GoK), thereby, the lands acquired for these purpose was put in a Land Bank of GoK.
We would like to place on record the following 2 documents for your perusal:
a) MoU between GoI and GoK dated 23-02-1994.
b) Deed of Conveyance between GoI and GoK dated 02-01-1995.
From the above mentioned documents, it is evident that the GoK has acquired the entire shareholding (total paid up value is Rs.12.9058 Crore) of the GoI in the Vijayanagar Steel Limited at 50% of the paid up value of such shares (6.4529 Crores) with effect from 23-02-1994 along with all the assets, rights, titles and all those several pieces or parcel of the land measuring 9341.41 acres. It was agreed by and between GoI and GoK that the shares, assets and land acquired for Vijayanagar Steel Limited being transferred to the GoK will revert to the GoI in the event of the failure of the GoK to implement the integrated steel project within a period of 6 years or such other period as may be extended by the GoI.
The Para 1b & 1d of the Deed of Conveyance reads as follows:
131b. Any existing or future liability arising out of and/or determined/adjudicated in the pending land acquisition proceedings in respect of aforesaid lands, buildings and hereditaments etc. shall be exclusively borne by the State Government, from the date hereof. 1d. In case, the compensation payable to the land owners is enhanced in the appropriate judicial forums, then such enhanced compensation together with additional interest, if any, shall be borne and paid by the State Government.
Accordingly, as per the Deed of Conveyance, the State Government was put into actual physical possession of all the shares of the Company, Vijayanagar Steel Limited and also the lands measuring 9341.41 acres. It may be noted that after the execution of Deed of Conveyance dated 02.01.1995, years have passed before the State Government has executed lease-cum-sale agreement dated 20-07-2006.
Keeping the above clauses in mind, the State Government has entered into lease-cum-sale agreement with the Company for 2000.58 acres of land and the tentative cost of plot of the land got reflected in Para-1, whereas Para 5a & 5b have dealt with as to how to arrive at actual cost of the land.
It may be noted that GoK paid a total of Rs.6.4529 crores as the cost of 9341.41 acres of land towards acquiring the same in 1995, which works out to Rs.6908/- per acre.
The premium stated in the lease-cum-sale agreement was sale value of the land which was collected at the time of lease-cum-sale agreement itself. As stated above, the land allotted was from out of the originally acquired extent of land (9341.41 acres) by the GoI/GoK. Though, JSW Steel which came forward to set up the integrated steel plant was entitled to the entire extent of land acquired by GoI/GoK only portion of it was given to the Company, that too on lease- cum-sale basis, periodically.
A reading of the above clauses makes it very clear that the premium paid is the tentative cost of the land. The cost of the land, in this case, is referable to the awards paid by the acquiring authority (GoI/GoK) at the time of acquisition. The price to be fixed at the time of executing the sale deed is related to the cost incurred in acquiring the land. Provision for refunding of excess amount paid was also provided. Clause 5, further provides for refund after arriving at the 14 cost, this clearly shows that the cost of the land is related to the cost of the acquisition alone.
The tentative cost of the land mentioned in the Clause 1 of the lease-cum-sale agreement is relatable to costs incurred in Clause 5(a) as this clause also refers to Clause 1 of the agreement. This provision is given considering the contingency costs that may be incurred by GoK over and above their cost of acquisition for these lands, if any. However, since GoK has allotted these lands to the Company at the rate of Rs.90,000/- which is 13 times their acquisition value/acre, GoK has already factored in all those contingencies and have allotted the same.
In order to finalize the sale deed the cost of the plot/land is to be arrived at Clause 5(a) provides for quantifying the actual cost of the land/value of the land. It is requested that the cost may be arrived at based on 5(a) which very clearly states that the payments if any, made by the Lessor to the land owners over and above the awards, this could also include any enhancement of awards by any competent Courts, and further the costs incurred by the Government if any, against payments made to the land owners to meet expenses stated in Clause 5(a). The Lessee is agreeable to pay the cost as arrived under 5(a) and request that the sale deed be executed immediately thereafter.
It is pertinent to note that the Company has set up the steel plant of 1.25 mtpa capacity in 1997 and has expanded its integrated steel capacity to 4.0 mtpa by 2007. With the present operational capacity at 12.0 mtpa, the valuation of the land has got appreciated over a period of time only due to the presence of JSW Steel, coming up in such a backward region in Ballari.
It is in this context and also keeping the above points in mind that for having complied with the conditions of lease- cum-sale agreement and also set up the integrated steel plant after infusing huge capital investment, the State Government is legally duty bound to execute the Absolute Sale Deed in favour of JSW Steel by finalizing the price of land as stated above, in the interest of justice and equity.
Hence, we humbly request you to execute the formal sale deed pursuant to the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 28-07-2006 and oblige.
15Thanking you, Yours sincerely, For JSW Steel Limited, Sd/- Mani Manuel, Authorized Signatory."
On 21-03-2018 again comes a recommendation.
Correspondences between the Company and the State galore and the matter was directed to be placed before the Cabinet.
Prior to the said decision, it appears, the Finance Department also has cleared issue of execution of sale deeds, albeit, on a revised price. All these are placed before the cabinet. It appears that the cabinet initially cleared the proposal of execution of sale deed on 27-05-2019 and immediately thereafter deferred the same. This was deliberated upon and a decision was taken to refer the matter to the cabinet sub-committee. The cabinet sub-
committee appears to have submitted its proposal recommending execution of sale deeds. All these documents are not appended to the petition as they are with the hands of the State. What emerges after all the deliberations is the proposal to accept the recommendation of the cabinet sub-committee.
This fructifies into a Government order. The Government order is dated 06-05-2021. The decision in the Government order is for 16 execution of the sale deeds. The relevant narration in the Government order is as follows:
".... .... .....
CAwªÀĪÁV ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ G¥À ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ §¼Áîj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÀAqÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ««zsÀ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 3,667.31 JPÀgÉ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ|| eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Æèöå. ¹ÖÃ¯ï °«ÄmÉqï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄAr¸À®Ä ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrzÉ:
i. °Ã¸ï PÀA ¸Éïï PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è£À Clause 8 and 9 gÀ°è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ªÉÄ||eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Æèöå., ¹ÖÃ¯ï °ªÀÄmÉqï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°ègÀĪÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉʹgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ªÉÄ||eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Æèöå. ¹ÖÃ¯ï °«ÄmÉqï EªÀjUÉ §¼Áîj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÀAqÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ««zsÀ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 3667.31 JPÀgÉ ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
ii. ªÉÄ||eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Æèöå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄ||JA.JAJ¯ï £ÀqÀÄªÉ EgÀĪÀ ªÁtÂdå vÀPÀgÁj£À PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è J¸ï.J¯ï.¦. ºÀÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð (UÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JAJ¸ïJAE), ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå CqÉÆéÃPÉÃmï d£ÀgÀ¯ï gÀªÀgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
CxÀªÁ F ªÁtÂdå vÀPÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß wêÀiÁð¤¸À®Ä ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ¢üñÀgÀ wæ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ «ÄÃrAiÉÄõÀ£ï ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß (Mediation Committee) £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¹L 54 JAJAJA 2021, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.03.2021 gÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå CqÉÆéÃPÉÃmï d£ÀgÀ¯ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 15190/2020, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13.01.2021gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÇÉ ÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è J¸ï.J¯ï.¦. ºÀÆqÀ®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÉÖÃmï «Ä£ÀgÀ¯ïì PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉõÀ£ï °«ÄmÉqï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ G¥À ¸À«Äw ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£ÀAvÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.05.2019 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ §¼Áîj f¯Éè ¸ÀAqÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄgÉÃPÀÄ¥Àà UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À 2000.58 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè, ªÀÄĸÉãÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀÄgÀ§£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À 1666.73 JPÀgÉ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ||eÉJ¸ïqÀ§Æèöå ¹ÖÃ¯ï °«ÄmÉqï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸À®Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26.04.2021 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ.
CzÀgÀAvÉ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.17
¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹L 352 J¸ï¦L 2020, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.05.2021 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÅÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.:
i. §¼Áîj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÀAqÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄgÉÃPÀÄ¥Àà UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À 2000.58 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ.1,22,200/-£ÀÄß CAwªÀÄ ¨É¯ÉAiÀiÁV ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹ ªÉÄ|| eÉJ¸ïqÀ§Æèöå ¹ÖÃ¯ï °., ¥ÀgÀªÁV ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉgÀªÉÃj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ;
ii. §¼Áîj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÀAqÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè, ªÀÄĸÉãÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀÄgÀ§£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À 1666.73 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ.1,50,635/- £ÀÄß CAwªÀÄ ¨É¯ÉAiÀiÁV ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹ ªÉÄ||eÉJ¸ïqÀ§Æèöå ¹ÖÃ¯ï °., ¥ÀgÀªÁV ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉgÀªÉÃj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ Pɦ¹J¯ïUÉ 944 JPÀgÉ ¥ÀAiÀiÁðAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£À ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¥ÀAiÀiÁðAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀzÀ ªÉZÀѪÀÅ ªÉÄ||eÉJ¸ïqÀ§Æèöå ¹ÖÃ¯ï °., UÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉZÀÑQÌAvÀ ºÉZÁÑVzÀÝ°è, F ªÀåvÁå¸ÀzÀ ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ||eÉJ¸ïqÀ§Æèöå ¹ÖÃ¯ï °., ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄÄ °Ã¸ï PÀA ¸Éïï rÃqï PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 24.10.2007 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå ¹L 82 J¸ï¦L 2005 ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.02.2007gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ / PÉLJr©UÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥ÀnÖzÉ.
iii. ªÉÄ||eÉJ¸ïqÀ§Æèöå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄ||JAJAJ¯ï (PÉ.J¸ï.JA.¹.J¯ï.) £ÀqÀÄªÉ EgÀĪÀ ªÁtÂdå vÀPÀgÁj£À PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå CqÉÆéÃPÉÃmï d£ÀgÀ¯ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÉÖÃmï «Ä£ÀgÀ¯ïì PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉõÀ£ï °«ÄmÉqï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÇÉ ÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®zÀ°è J¸ï.J¯ï.¦. ºÀÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹L 180 J¸ï¦L 2013 gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.05.2019 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹-260/2019 gÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26.04.2021 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹-160/2021 gÀ°è C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀivÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è, ¸À»/- 6/5/2021 (£ÁUÀgÀvÀߪÀÄä .f.) ¦ÃoÁ¢üPÁj (vÁAwæPÀ PÉÆñÀ), ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ."
The afore-quoted Government order notices that the cabinet had cleared execution of the sale deeds and later studies were undertaken and on 26-04-2021 the earlier cabinet decision of 18 27-05-2019 was affirmed and a decision comes about to execute the sale deeds. Then comes a particular hitch in the block. After the Government order was issued, a public interest petition was preferred before this Court on 31-05-2021 in Writ Petition No.9577 of 2021. What was sought therein was to call for the records of entire proceedings of the sub-committee and the decision taken by the cabinet thereon and to quash the decision of the cabinet dated 26-04-2021. This was disposed of by order of the Court dated 8-11-2021 and the order reads as follows:
"Heard.
2. This public interest litigation has been filed seeking the following reliefs.
(a) To call for the records pertaining to the decision of the State Cabinet headed by the Chief Minister Sri B.s.
Yediyurappa and its Sub-Committee headed by industry Minister Sri Jagadish Shettar and others, bearing file No.CI 352 SPI 2020 (E).
(b) Issue Writ of Mandamus quashing the decision of the Karnataka State Cabinet dated 26-04-2021 proposing to execute Lease cum-Sale Deed of the lands stated supra to the Extent of 3,667 acres to the 11th Respondent as the same is illegal and against the interest of the public at large vide Annexure-A.
(c) To conduct a detailed enquiry by an independent agency appointed by this Hon'ble Court to enquire into the decision of the Karnataka State Cabinet dated 26- 04-2021 proposing to execute Sale Deed to the extent of 3,667 Acres of land to the 11th Respondent and to submit the report before this Hon'ble Court within a reasonable period or as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court vide Annexure-A and 19 Pass any other orders, as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interests of Justice and Equity."
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 10 on the basis of the instructions submits that the decision taken by the earlier Government headed by the Chief Minister Sri B.S. Yediyurappa and the Sub-Committee headed by Sri Jagadeesh Shettar, bearing file No.CI 352 SPI 2020 (E) has not been reaffirmed and the entire matter shall be relooked into by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, which is not opposed by Smt. S.R. Anuradha, learned counsel who appears for respondent No.11. However, we make it clear that all contentions are kept open and in the event, the Government takes decision in regard to the subject matter of the writ petition, it is always open for the petitioner to seek revival of the order passed by this Court based on the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
4. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and it is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied) The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, on instructions submitted to the Court that, the decision taken by the earlier Government headed by the then Chief Minister and the sub-committee headed by the then Minister has not been re-affirmed and the entire matter shall be re-looked into by the Hon'ble Chief Minister then. This was not opposed by the learned senior counsel for the Company. The Division Bench 20 made it clear that in the event Government would take a decision in regard to the subject matter, it was always open to the Company to seek revival of the order which was passed on the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous.
8. After the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench, a request comes about again for execution of sale deed. The request from the Company dated 10-01-2022 reads as follows:
"JSW Steel Limited 10-01-2022 Regd. Office: JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051.
To The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, 3rd Floor, Vidhana Souda, Bangalore-560 001.
Kind attn.: Shri Basavaraj Bommai Ji.
Respected Sir, Sub: Request for Execution of Absolute Sale Deed for Land allotted under Lease-cum-sale agreements.
--
The Government of Karnataka has accorded the approval for conversion of lease-cum-sale agreements in compliance to the terms recorded therein to absolute sale deeds for 2000.58 acres 21 and 1666.73 acres land in favour of JSW Steel Limited, vide G.O. dated 06-05-2021.
The decision of the Karnataka State Cabinet dated 26.04.2021 to execute Absolute sale deed with respect to 2000.58 acres and 1666.73 acres of land in favour of JSW Steel was challenged vide PIL bearing No. WP 9577 of 2021 in the Honourable High Court of Karnataka. Relying upon the submissions made by learned Additional Government Advocate that the decisions taken by the earlier Government has not been reaffirmed and the entire matter shall be relooked into by the incumbent Chief Minister, the said PIL has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its Order dated 08-11-2021 (certified copy of the Order is attached herewith).
It may be kindly noted that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the entire matter shall be relooked by your goodselves, we request your good offices to issue the necessary directions to the officials concerned, to execute the respective sale deeds, as part of the agreed conditions of lease-cum-sale agreements and confirmed vide Government order dated 6th May, 2021.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For JSW Steel Limited, Sd/- Dr. Vinod Nowal, Deputy Managing Director.
(Emphasis added) Till date no sale deeds are executed. Therefore, the Company has knocked at the doors of this Court.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that a decision has been taken and what is awaited is a direction at the hands of this Court. If decision of the cabinet on 26-04-2021 22 was to execute sale deeds which had fructified into Government order dated 6-05-2021, the State could not have dillydallied issuance of sale deeds. The Division Bench permitted the State to have a re-look into the matter. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that Government had a re-look into the matter. This Court directed the Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit with regard to the decision of the State of having had a re-look into the matter. The Additional Advocate General did not file any affidavit as was directed, but submitted that the order of the Court would result in registration of the sale deeds. The issue is therefore, placed at the hands of the Court by the State.
10. In the light of the Division Bench judgment supra, in the event the sale deeds takes place between the State and the Company as decided by the cabinet, the liberty reserved to the petitioner therein would get revived, as it would be a decision in the light of observations by the Division Bench. Therefore, it becomes a fit case, in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, to issue a mandamus to give effect to the decision of the cabinet dated 27- 05-2019 and its further decision dated 26-04-2021 which affirms 23 the earlier decision, both of which have been placed in the Government order dated 6-05-2021. This shall however be with the liberty reserved by the Division Bench as quoted supra.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in the light of the observations made in the order.
(ii) A mandamus issues to the 1st respondent/State to take the Government order dated 6-05-2021, which is a product of decision of the cabinet on 26-04-
2021, to its logical conclusion and execute sale deeds in favour of the petitioner/Company.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ