Dismissed

Karnataka Industrial Area v. Aslam Ahamed Ghouri

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2021WA/403/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by KIADB challenging a single judge order that directed the transfer of leasehold rights to the lessee. The Court held KIADB could not retrospectively apply amended agreement clauses to demand a higher sum than initially demanded before government approval.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed pending the payment of Rs. 15,82,000/- inclusive of interest by the appellant to transfer leasehold rights.

Karnataka Industrial Area Vs Aslam Ahamed… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.403 OF 2020 (GM-KIADB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR R.P.BUILDING, N.R.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI:ASHOK NARAYAN NAYAK, ADVOCATE (PH))

¶13

AND:

¶14

ASLAM AHAMED GHOURI SON OF LATE ABDUL WAHAB GHOURI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.30/3 MIRANDA CHAWL, RATWADO NAVELIN, SALVRY, MADGAON GOA-403 601.

¶15

M/S CLASSIC ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO.30/3, MIRANDA CHAWL, RATWADO NAVELIN, SALVRY, MADGAON GOA-403 601.

¶16

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS

¶18

SRI.ZAHEER AHMED

¶19

WASEEM AHMED

¶20

SAJIDA BEGUM

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI:T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH))

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 02/01/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.13634 OF 2012 (GM-KIADB) DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO TRANSFER THE LEASE HOLD RIGHTS IN THE FAVOUR OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT (ASLAM AHAMED GHOURI) BY COLLECTING RS.6,65,118/- WITH INTEREST OF 10% PER ANNUM FROM 19/05/2006.

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Though there is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal, we have, nonetheless, heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal.

¶27

The legality and correctness of order dated 02/01/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.13634 of 2012 by

¶28

¶29

the learned Single Judge is called in question in this appeal.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that, industrial plot No.87/B1 in Jigani Industrial Area, 1^st Phase, Bengaluru, was originally allotted in favour of M/s.Ittina Printers Private Limited by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as “the KIADB” for the sake of brevity) and lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in the year 1984. Subsequently, M/s.Ittina Printers Private Limited became a defaulter in paying dues to KSIIDC and KSFC. The financial institutions brought the industrial plot for sale by invoking Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. The said plot was purchased by M/s.Solar Busi Forms Limited and lease-cum-sale agreement was executed by KIADB on 23/01/1995 for a period of two years on payment of cost of the plot at Rs.1,47,892/-. The said M/s Solar Busi Forms went into liquidation and the matter was adjudicated by the Bombay High Court. As per the Notification dated 28/10/2003, the

¶31

¶32

said industrial plot was again brought for public auction as per the order of Bombay High Court. In the public auction, the plot was purchased by M/s.Classic Enterprises on 01/09/2005 which is the second petitioner in the writ petition, by paying Rs.37.50 lakhs. The Official Liquidator of the Bombay High Court executed the sale deed in favour of the second petitioner on 31/05/2006 which in turn sold the property in favour of the first petitioner on 21/12/2006. The second petitioner approached KIADB with a representation dated 27/03/2006 seeking transfer of leasehold rights. The KIADB vide Annexure-B dated 19/05/2006 demanded a sum of Rs.6,65,118/-. It again issued Annexure-C dated 10/09/2008 and demanded Rs.2,95,804/-. Subsequently, KIADB demanded Rs.79,53,368/- vide Annexure-D dated 14/02/2012, which was called in question by the petitioners in the Writ Petition before this Court.

¶33

The learned Single Judge, considering the rival contentions, allowed the writ petition by quashing

¶34

¶35

Annexure-D dated 14/02/2012 and directing the KIADB to transfer leasehold rights of the subject property in favour of the first petitioner by collecting Rs.6,65,118/- with interest at 10% p.a. from 19/05/2006 till the date of payment and directing the first petitioner to deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of order. Upon receipt of the amount, KIADB has been directed to transfer the leasehold rights in favour of the first petitioner by executing the sale deed within four weeks there from. Aggrieved by the order dated 02/01/2020 passed in the writ petition, KIADB has preferred this appeal.

¶36

We have heard Sri.Ashok Narayan Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant-KIADB and Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶37

Learned counsel representing the appellant justified the demand made by the KIADB as per AnnexureD. It was contended that the demand of Rs.79,53,368/-

¶38

as per Annexure-D dated 14/02/2012 is the amount

¶39

¶40

equivalent to the difference between the prevailing allotment price and the amount already paid by the lessee/original allottee to the Board for the purpose of transferring leasehold rights to the third party. The said demand is in conformity with the allotment conditions. Learned counsel also submitted that, in view of the amendment to Clause 11(i) and 11(ii) of the lease-cumsale agreement, the appellant is entitled to collect the amount equivalent to the difference between the prevailing allotment price and the amount already paid by the original allottee. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

¶41

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in light of the material placed before us. Admittedly, as per resolution dated 05/12/2007, the KIADB sought approval of the Government to amend Clause 11(i) and 11(ii) of the leasecum-sale agreement to enable it to collect the amount equivalent to the difference between the prevailing

¶42

¶43

allotment price and the amount already paid by the allottee. The Government accorded approval vide communication dated 21/01/2008. Appellant demanded Rs.6,65,118/- as per Annexure-B dated 19/05/2006 and demanded Rs.2,95,804/as per Annexure-C dated 10/09/2008. The demand as per Annexure-D dated 14/02/2012. Therefore, it is clear that the initial demand as per Annexure-B for Rs.6,65,118/- was much earlier to the approval of the Government dated 21/01/2008. Even after approval of the resolution of KIADB dated 05/12/2007 and permitting it to collect the amount equivalent to the difference between the prevailing allotment price and the amount already paid by the allottee, Annexure-C was issued demanding only Rs.2,95,804/-. But strangely, Annexure-D was issued on 14/02/2012 demanding Rs.79,53,368/- without there being any basis.

¶44

8. There is no justification for KIADB to demand

¶45

the prevailing allotment price after deducting the amount

¶46

¶47

already paid, as sale of the property and execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement is much prior to the resolution passed by KIADB and the date of approval by the Government authorising it to collect the amount equivalent to the difference between the prevailing allotment price and the amount already paid by the original allottee. There is no justification for demanding the amount as per Annexure-D applying the approval accorded by the Government retrospectively. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that it is entitled for the demand as per Annexure-D in view of the amendment of Clause 11(i) and 11(ii) of the lease-cum-sale agreement cannot be accepted.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not

¶49

find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶50

At this stage, Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the demand draft dated 12/02/2020 for a sum of Rs.15,82,000/- was handed over

¶51

¶52

to the appellant. But the same has been retuned to respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶53

In the circumstances, the appellant to hand over the demand draft for a sum of Rs.15,82,000/- only (inclusive of Rs.6,65,118/- with interest at 10% from 19/05/2006 till 12/02/2020) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶54

On receipt of the aforesaid amount, the appellant shall transfer leasehold rights in favour of the first respondent by executing a sale deed within three weeks there from.

¶55

Ordered accordingly.

¶56

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending applications stand dismissed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

*bgn/-

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

Karnataka Industrial Area v. Aslam Ahamed Ghouri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Industrial Area v. Aslam Ahamed Ghouri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ningappa P. Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H R Ramesh Vs M/S Janapada Seva Trust

K.L.Ranjitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Jayaramappa Vs the Bangalore University

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Rukkamma

Smt. Eugenia Preethi Vs Sri. Leo John