Dismissed

Sri Rajkumar Jalan v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2013WP/30270/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the writ petition seeking a lower land rate based on 2006 figures. Holding that prices are fixed on the date of allotment, not application, and noting the applicant accepted initial terms, the Court dismissed the plea for reduced payment.

What did the court decide?

Production of the petition at the ex-parte hearing is discouraged. The petitioner must pay the balance amount as per the allotment letter to avail the plot.

Sri Rajkumar Jalan Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board — Karnataka HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.30270/2010 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Rajkumar Jalan Aged 42 years S/o Rameshwar Das 17056, Prestige Shanti Niketan Whitefield Road Bangalore – 560 048 … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri N Ravindranath Kamath, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Government of Karnataka A Government Undertaking Having its Office at 14/3, II Floor, R.P. Building Nrupathunga Road Bangalore – 560 001 Rep. by its C.E.O. … Respondent

¶12

(By Sri P V Chandrashekar, Adv.)

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to; direct the respondent to allot one acre of industrial plot instead of half acre of plot to the petitioner in Harohalli Industrial Area in accordance with law as per his application produced at Annexure-A after receiving Rs.14,00,000/- being the balance due to the

¶14

¶15

petitioner at the then prevailing rate which otherwise the petitioner is entitled for from the respondent in the matter of the plot in Harohalli Industrial Area, Bangalore and etc.

¶16

This Writ Petition coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following :

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to allot one acre of industrial plot instead of half acre of plot to the petitioner in Harohalli Industrial area as per his application produced at Annexure-A after receiving Rs.14,00,000/being the balance due to the petitioner at the then prevailing rate to which the petitioner would have been entitled, if the allotment was made immediately after his application.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that he is an industrialist and had applied for allotment of plot measuring 1 acre in the name of his Proprietary concern M/s R.K. Granites and Marbles in the layout formed by the respondent-Board at Harohalli. The application had been filed by the petitioner on 13.12.2006. According to the

¶20

¶21

petitioner, the land at that point was being offered at the

¶22

rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. In that view, the petitioner is aggrieved by the rate which has been fixed as per the allotment letter dated 01.02.2010 as at Annexure-E to the petition. In the said communication, the respondents have intimated the petitioner that the price fixed in the said layout is at Rs.60,00,000/- per acre being the tentative cost and in that regard, the allotment of half an acre of land has been made in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2006, the allotment price was only Rs.20,00,000/- per acre and if the respondents had allotted the said plot as sought by the petitioner during that period, he would have secured the same at a lower price. It is contended that the extension of time for payment of the amount as demanded under the allotment letter had been made by oversight and the same cannot be held against the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that the Regulations indicated in Annexure-J is not justified but however, the second prayer is not pressed into service at this juncture.

¶23

¶24

In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the extract filed by the petitioner at Annexure-D to point out that the application made by the petitioner is on 13.12.2006 but the allotment has been made as late as on 01.02.2010, while certain other applicants who have applied later than the petitioner have been allotted much earlier which has enabled them to secure the plots at a lower price while for the petitioner higher price has been imposed. In that light, the petitioner contends that since the value was Rs.20,00,000/- per acre in the year 2006, since the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.6,00,500/-, the petitioner is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- and as such a direction be issued to the respondents in that regard.

¶25

The respondents have filed the objection statement. It is contended that the price that would be fixed is that would prevail as on the date of the allotment and not on the date of the application. It is contended that several aspects would have to be taken into

¶26

¶27

consideration; such as the cost of the land by way of acquisition and also the costs incurred towards formation of the layout and in that circumstance, the price would be fixed at the time of allotment. It is pointed out that insofar as the Harohalli layout, the price which had been originally fixed has been subsequently revised depending on the costs that had been incurred. It is pointed out that subsequently, though the price was at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre in the year 2008, by the proceedings of the Board on 19.12.2008, it has been increased to Rs.60,00,000/- per acre. As such, the petitioner in any event, cannot have any grievance when the said price had been intimated to the petitioner when the allotment was made on 01.02.2010. It is further pointed out that the available land has been allotted to the petitioner and the cost therein for half an acre has been indicated. It is the case of the respondents that when the petitioner has accepted the allotment as per the price fixed and has sought for extension of time to pay the balance of 80% as indicated therein, the petitioner at this juncture is estopped from putting forth any other

¶28

¶29

contention in the instant petition. It is their case that the

¶30

prayer made in the petition is liable to be rejected.

¶31

In the light of the rival contentions which have

¶32

been put forth, the fact that the petitioner had made an application seeking allotment of one acre of plot on 13.12.2006 is not in dispute. The respondents have considered the application of the petitioner and allotment has been made on 01.02.2010. By the said allotment letter, the plot No.181 measuring half an acre of Harohalli 2^nd phase, Industrial Area has been allotted in favour of the firm for which the petitioner is the Proprietor. A perusal of the allotment letter would clearly indicate that a tentative cost of Rs.60,00,000/- per acre

¶33

has been fixed in that regard. In such circumstance, it is also pointed out that 20% of the amount is to be paid within 30 days and the balance of 80% amounting to Rs.24,00,000/- is to be paid within 180 days thereafter i.e.,

¶34

on or before 01.08.2010. Pursuant to the said allotment, the fact that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.6,00,500/is also not in dispute. In any event, the payment is as seen from the demand drafts which are at Annexure-‘C’.

¶35

¶36

In that light, the question for consideration is as

¶37

to whether the petitioner is required to pay the balance of Rs.24,00,000/- as indicated in the said letter or as to whether the case of the petitioner for payment of Rs.14,00,000/- and that too for one acre could be accepted. In this regard, a reference to the communication dated 13.07.2010 at Annexure-‘G’ would indicate that the petitioner having accepted the allotment based on the conditions that were imposed therein has sought for extension of time to pay the balance of 80% of the amount. The said request of the petitioner has been considered by the respondents by their communication dated 20.07.2010 as at Annexure-H and the nature of payment of the balance of Rs.24,00,000/- to be made by the petitioner has also been indicated therein. When this is the position, the petitioner has thereafter approached this Court.

¶38

Firstly, having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is an Entrepreneur seeking allotment of a plot for starting an industrial unit, cannot be heard to contend

¶39

¶40

that he had misconstrued the terms of the allotment in a

¶41

circumstance where he has accepted the allotment and sought time for payment. Hence, to the extent of the condition imposed under the allotment, the same having been accepted at the outset the petitioner is bound by the same and would have to abide by it if the petitioner is to avail the benefit of the allotment as made by the respondents.

¶42

Having arrived at the said conclusion, the question that would also remain for consideration is as to whether the petitioner has been discriminated upon as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on Annexure-D. In this regard, from the statement produced by the petitioner no doubt about 17 establishments including that of the petitioner has been listed therein indicating different dates on which the applications have been made. Except for one application, the other applications have been considered immediately and thereafter the application that had been made by the petitioner has been considered.

¶43

¶44

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶45

contends that the allotments have been made to them earlier by overlooking seniority and the regulations in that regard, the said question in my opinion cannot be gone into in detail in the instant petition when the beneficiaries of the said allotments are not made parties to this petition and all questions relating to nature of the said allotment is not available to be taken into consideration. However, since prima facie, I find that the allotment sought by the petitioner was for one acre while all other allotments that have been made to the said persons are for smaller extents of the land which has been measured in square mts. as indicated therein they cannot be treated as similarly situated persons. Therefore, there could be no assumption that the petitioner has been discriminated upon despite there being available one acre plot at that juncture itself.

¶46

Furthermore, what is also to be noticed is that when the allotment was made to the petitioner on 01.02.2010, the said issue has not been raised by the petitioner by way of protest as noticed above, but on the

¶47

¶48

other hand, the petitioner had sought time to pay the amount and despite the time being granted, the petitioner has thereafter approached this Court. Therefore, even such contention in my opinion would not aid the petitioner to seek for the relief as made in the instant petition since

¶49

the prayer is only to allot the land to the petitioner at a rate which was prevailing in the year 2006. On that aspect, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the price that would be fixed is the one that would be prevailing as on the date of allotment and not on the date of the application since several aspects which go into development of the layout by way of costs incurred by the Statutory Authority would also determine the price that would be fixed. Therefore, in my opinion, the prayer as made in the instant petition cannot be granted.

¶50

However, if the petitioner makes the payment as indicated even at this stage as per the allotment letter subject to the terms of the Regulations, the petitioner would be entitled to the plot as allotted to him under the allotment letter.

¶51

¶52

In terms of the above, the petition stands

disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

hrp/bms

Sri Rajkumar Jalan v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajkumar Jalan v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Babu S/O Syed Peersab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Sreeramulu Gupta Vs Sri a C Radhakrishna

P N Upadya Vs State by Inspector of Police

Kavya D/O a R Rajappa Vs a R Rajappa

B S Anand Kumar S/O Subbe Gowda Vs Anith Kumar S/O Ramesha H P

C Vijayakumari Vs M R Gopinath