Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Infrastructure Development in Sri. Hamed Ali vs Sri. Kabbalegowda on 18 December, 2015Matching Fragments
And further, that D.K.Shivkumar had entered into a joint development agreement in respect of the land with M/s Prudential Housing and Infrastructure Development Limited, as on 10.5.2004, which, according to the court below, was in violation of the KRTL Act.
In so far as the allegations against Deepak Kumar and Lehar Singh is concerned, the court has found that there were no materials to support the allegations, of having acted as agents for B.S.Yeddiyurappa, by receiving money on his behalf
The allegation that the land had already been converted from agricultural user to industrial use and was hence not capable of being further converted to residential use, it is contended, is not the correct legal position. It is pointed out that Section 95 read with Section 97 of the KLR Act does permit such conversion and the Deputy Commissioner is competent to grant the same.
6. The learned Senior Advocate Shri C.V.Nagesh, appearing for the counsel for Accused no.6, M/s Prudential Housing and Infrastructure Development Ltd., the petitioner in Criminal Petition 4380/2012, would contend- that the petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Purvankara Projects Private Limited, which is a well known builder with operations in Bangalore and other cities. It is not the allegation against the petitioner that it was involved in conversion of the user of the land or in the process of de-notifying the land. From the material on record, it is evident that Accused no.1 - D.K.Shivakumar has purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed, dated 18.12.2003, from one B.K.Srinivasan. It is seen that he has thereafter applied for conversion of the land, which appears to have been accorded on 7.10.2004.
The said accused having filed an application seeking conversion of the land from industrial user to residential use, the Special Deputy Commissioner had closed the file by an order dated 2.4.2004, with a noting that the further process of the file shall be after receiving an opinion, as to the status of the land from BDA.
The said accused had entered into a joint development agreement with M/s Prudential Housing and Infrastructure Development Limited, under which 73% of the interest in the land was to be conveyed in favour of the said developer, the accused retained 27%.
Though the Police, in their final report, had not found any illegality in the joint development agreement entered into with the company M/s Prudential Housing and Infrastructure Development Ltd, the trial court has taken exception, against the said agreement - again on the premise, as the purchase of the land in the first place was illegal, any subsequent transaction was also tainted and hence the company has been named as an accused. This is not tenable. There was no apparent illegality involved. There was not even any transfer of interest in the land involved at that point of time. The trial could not have taken cognizance of any offence against the said company or its officers.