Karnataka High Court
M/S Mother Dry Fruits vs The Commissioner on 28 February, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8323
WP No. 52816 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 52816 OF 2014 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S MOTHER DRY FRUITS
& VEGETABLE (P) LTD,
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
M/S. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HAVINT ITS FRUIT PROCESSING
PLANT AT: SY.NOS. 98 & 99,
KAJISONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
WHITEFIELD, HOSKOTE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560067.
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL
& COMPANY SECRETARY
MR. LALIT PRABHAKAR.
...PETITIONER
Digitally
(BY SRI. B.N.ANANTHA NARAYANA., ADVOCATE)
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R AND:
Location:
HIGH 1. THE COMMISSIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BANGALORE 560020.
2. THE TOWN PLANNING SECTION
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BANGALORE 560020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8323
WP No. 52816 of 2014
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R-3 & R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DEMAND ORDERS DATED 03.01.2014,
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.2, PURSUANT TO A RESOLUTION
BEARING NO.186/13, DATED:21.12.13, PASSED BY
RESPONDENT No.1 / COMMITTEE, DIRECTING THE PETIITONER
TO PAY A SUM OF RS.1,82,85,400/- TOWARDS BETTERMENT,
SLUM DEVELOPMENT, SUPERVISION, DEVELOPMENT, LAKE
DEVELOPMENT & SCRUTINY CHARGES TO RELEASE THE
MODIFIED PLAN IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY &
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-U, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8323
WP No. 52816 of 2014
ORDER
1. Under the Government Order dated 28.02.2000, an extent of 60 acres of land in Sy.No.99 was handed over to the National Dairy Development Board (for short, "the NDDB") at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for setting up of Agro Food Processing Infrastructure project.
2. On 29.09.2000, the Government accorded approval to hand over an extent of 60 acres in Sy.No.99 of Kannamangla Farm to the NDDB. By another Government Order dated 22.11.2000, the State Government fixed the value of the land at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
3. On 02.02.2001, the possession of this 60 acres of land was handed over to the NDDB --M/s.Mother Dairy, Fruit and Vegetable Limited--a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Dairy Development Board.
4. The Regional Director of the Mother Dairy, Fruit and Vegetable Limited sought for approval of a Development Plan for the proposed Terminal Market Complex in the aforementioned land. The Bangalore Development -4- NC: 2024:KHC:8323 WP No. 52816 of 2014 Authority (for short, "the BDA"), by a letter dated 01.04.2002, approved the Project and proceeded to demand a sum of Rs.1,74,08,860/- towards Betterment charges, Scrutiny fee, development charges, M.R.T.S. Cess and Supervision Charges. This amount was remitted by the petitioner and thereafter, a Work Order was also issued on 01.06.2002 and thereafter, the plan was also approved.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the permission accorded by the BDA, it established a Terminal Market Complex and thereafter, on 08.11.2006, the Government formally executed a sale deed in respect of 60 acres of land.
6. On 23.02.2007, the Government proceeded to execute another sale deed in respect of Sy.No.98 measuring 03 acres 01 gunta. In respect of this additional extent of 03 acres 01 guntas, the petitioner submitted a request to the BDA to accord approval for constructing buildings. However, by another letter dated 02.03.2001, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:8323 WP No. 52816 of 2014 the petitioner re-submitted a fresh application, by which the earlier request for constructing a building of 1795 sq.mtr., for a cold storage was deleted and approval was sought to set up only five buildings, i.e., for safal Daily Fresh Sales Room, Evaporative Cooling Ripening Chamber, Cold Storage Warehouse and Two Store Rooms. Along with the application, a plan indicating the location of these proposed buildings was also submitted.
7. In this plan, the earlier extent of 60 acres was also indicated, obviously because the 03 acres 01 guntas that was sold was abutting these 60 acres.
8. In response to this request, the BDA proceeded to issue a demand notice for a sum of Rs.1,82,85,400/-.
9. The petitioner, being aggrieved, is before this Court challenging the said demand.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the BDA has committed a serious illegality in assuming that the petitioner was seeking modification of the earlier -6- NC: 2024:KHC:8323 WP No. 52816 of 2014 Development Plan and has committed a serious error in construing the entire area to be an area which the petitioner meant to use for a commercial purpose and has accordingly made a huge demand.
11. It is submitted that the petitioner did not seek any modification of the Development Plan that had already been approved as the development had already been executed as per the approved plan.
12. It is submitted that the approval that was sought was only in respect of an additional extent of 03 acres 01 gunta that had been sold to the petitioner subsequently, in which the buildings were sought to be constructed and therefore, the BDA had committed a serious mistake in assuming that the entire 60 acres was being utilized for a modified purpose.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the BDA submits that since 03 acres 01 gunta of land which had been subsequently sold is an inseparable part of the earlier 60 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:8323 WP No. 52816 of 2014 acres of land sold to the petitioner, any development on this 03 acres 01 gunta of land would have to be construed as a part and parcel of the entire Project and since the building sought to be put up in this 03 acres 01 gunta of land was for a commercial purpose, the entire area of 60 acres would also have to be re-classified, and accordingly, demands were required to be made. He, therefore, submits that the demands made cannot be found fault with.
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner sought approval of a Development Plan in respect of 60 acres in Sy.No.99 and it is also not in dispute that pursuant to the approval granted, a Terminal Market Complex has also been constructed. In other words, the original intent of the Project was achieved and the original Project was as an industrial unit for which the demands were made and were accordingly paid.
15. It is, therefore, clear that once the approval for 60 acres was granted and construction was also made in -8- NC: 2024:KHC:8323 WP No. 52816 of 2014 accordance with the approval granted, there was no question of any modification being sought for this extent of 60 acres. The petitioner, by virtue of the subsequent sale of 03 acres 01 gunta, sought to erect buildings in respect of this 03 acres 01 gunta of land, and this request cannot be construed as a request for modification of the development plan which was already approved and also executed.
16. The application filed for construction of buildings in the additional extent of 03 acres 01 gunta purchased by the petitioner will have to be construed independently, since the petitioner admit that this 03 acres 01 gunta of land was sought to be utilized for construction of buildings for a commercial purpose, and consequently, the BDA will be entitled to claim the necessary charges only in respect of this 03 acres 01 gunta.
17. In other words, the BDA cannot assume that the entire project is sought to be modified, or that the earlier development plan was sought to be modified merely -9- NC: 2024:KHC:8323 WP No. 52816 of 2014 because an application to construct the buildings in a land subsequently acquired was sought for.
18. Since the impugned notice proceeds on the premise that the petitioner had sought for approval of the earlier development plan of the year 2002, the same cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed.
19. The BDA is directed to consider the application sought for by the petitioner in respect of this 03 acres 01 gunta independently and not as a modification of the early development plan.
20. If the petitioner is required to pay any charges in respect of this separate extent of 03 acres 01 gunta, the same shall be collected from the petitioner and appropriate orders be passed for erecting of the buildings.
21. For the purpose of granting approval, the plan submitted by the petitioner shall be construed only with reference to 03 acres 01 gunta of land that is indicated in the plan.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8323 WP No. 52816 of 2014
22. The petitioner shall also submit a separate plan in respect of this 03 acres 01 gunta of land, indicating the buildings that they seek to construct.
23. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK Ct: Sn List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10