Partly allowed

M/S Renuka Fertilizers v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2019WP/102426/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court writ petition challenged the cancellation of an industrial land allotment. The court directed the Board to reconsider the extension of time request within three months rather than allowing outright cancellation, as the site was not yet auctioned.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation of allotment set aside; KIADB directed to reconsider extension request within three months.

M/S Renuka Fertilizers Vs Karnataka Industrial Area… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.102426/2018(GM-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. RENUKA FERTILIZERS BY ITS PROPRIETOR TAKAPPA P RATHOD AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, C/O K.T. PATIL, “GAURAV BUILDING”, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HEMANT R CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, # 49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, ‘EAST WING’, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶13

DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.7/B-3, KANGRALI INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.B.ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.P.N. HATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2017/6/10 BEARING NO. KA.KAI. PRA. MUM/KEM. KA./HANCHIKE/1324/10286/2017-18, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND REASONABLE TIME TO THE PETITIONER TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order at Annexure-E.

¶21

The petitioner was allotted Plot No.1324 measuring 500 sq.mtrs. at Kanabaragi Industrial Area, Belagavi and lease-cum-sale agreement has been executed by KIADB in favour of the petitioner on 25.06.2011.

¶22

It is stated that the request was made to respondent No.2 to extend the time to implement the project. It is further submitted that as per letter at Annexure-C, the petitioner was called upon to furnish

¶23

¶24

necessary documents including the plan for putting-up

¶25

of construction and thereafter, question of extension of time to implement the project would be considered. It is further stated that the notice came to be issued to the petitioner at Annexure-D whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear and explain as to the steps taken for implementation of the project. However, it is stated that as per the order at Annexure-E, allotment made in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled wherein there was a direction to surrender the possession to the authority.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that

¶27

no doubt there has been lapse on the part of the petitioner but even otherwise as per Clause 11(vi) of the allotment letter and clause 10(1)(e) of the Lease-cumSale Agreement, the petitioner’s request for extension of time could be considered subject to the conditions enumerated therein. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be set-aside.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB

¶30

states that in view of the default of the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale deed despite having given opportunity to the petitioner, no steps were taken to implement the project and hence, the impugned order at Annexure-E has been passed.

¶31

It is to be noted that the allotment has been made as per the allotment letter at Annexure-A dated 24.02.2011. No doubt, various stipulations have been provided regarding utilization of the property as per Clause 11 (vi). In the event of default to take effective steps, the allotted land would be resumed and request for restoration would be considered at the rates prevailing at the time of considering such request.

¶32

It is further to be noted that even as per the conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement (copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-B) under clause 10(1)(e), extension of time for implementing the project would be

¶33

¶34

granted subject to conditions stipulated under clause 10(1)(e).

¶35

It is to be noted that the request for

¶36

extension of time has been rejected as per the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 6.10.2017. The counsel for the petitioner states that the conditions imposed in the allotment letter at clause 11(vi) is more onerous than the conditions contained in the lease-cum-sale agreement, still the petitioner is ready to abide by such terms and conditions as may be imposed by KIADB in terms of clause 11(vi) of the allotment letter or clause 10(1)(e) of the lease-cum-sale agreement.

¶37

Taking note of the fact that Annexure-E came to be passed on 6.10.2017, the petitioner has approached this Court on 27.03.2018 without much delay and also noticing that the said site has not been allotted or put-up for public auction till date nor is any third party interest created, another opportunity may be granted to the petitioner in terms of conditions

¶38

¶39

stipulated under the allotment letter and lease-cum-sale agreement.

¶40

Though the learned counsel for respondentKIADB draws the attention of this Court to WA No.100211/2018, it is to be noted that the said writ appeal came to be disposed of in the light of the observations at para-5 wherein the challenge was only to the notice calling upon the allottee to surrender the original documents without having challenged the cancellation of the allotment. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of site at Annexure-E.

¶41

In the light of the observations made above, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-KIADB to reconsider the request of the petitioner for extension of time to implement the project.

¶42

In the light of the observations made above,

¶43

the order of cancellation of allotment is set-aside. The present petition is to be considered as a representation

¶44

¶45

for extension of time to implement the project. The petitioner is also at liberty to place such other materials in support of his request for extension of time to implement the project.

¶46

The respondent-KIADB taking note of the clause 11(vi) of the allotment letter and conditions imposed in the lease-cum-sale agreement under clause 10(1)(e) is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within a period not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is open to the KIADB keeping in mind the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement as well as the allotment letter

¶47

to impose necessary conditions looking into the facts and circumstances relating to the petitioner and the request made.

¶48

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of subject to above observations. It is made clear that in the event of request made by the petitioner is

¶49

¶50

considered, the conditions required to be fulfilled for retaining the allotment as imposed under the leasecum-sale deed henceforth would be required to be complied with, failing which respondent-KIADB is at liberty to take necessary action against the petitioner if there is any violation thereafter.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

JTR

M/S Renuka Fertilizers v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Renuka Fertilizers 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

The Managing Director Vs Dattatreya S/O. Rajaramsa Meharwade

The Managing Director Vs Paravva @ Parvati W/O. Hanumant Sortur

The Managing Director Vs Asha Shetty @ Ashish Kaur Chadda

Mabusab S/O Jandisab Nadaf Vs the Managing Director

Shankar S/O. Vakude @ Gondhali Vs Shnehalata W/O Sachin Vakude @ Gondhali

Chandrahas Raddi S/O Narayana Raddi Vs P Sunilkumar