Disposed

M/S R B Steel and Alloys v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2021WP/4582/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to grant an indulgence in writ petitions challenging the cancellation of industrial land allotments and price fixation by KIADB. The Court ruled that allottees must pay the final determined amount within three months to retain ownership, warning that allotments may be cancelled upon failure to pay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed a conditional indulgence to retain allotments if demanded amount and charges are paid within three months; failure results in cancellation.

M/S R B Steel and Alloys Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4582 OF 2015 (GM-KIADB) C/w WRIT PETITION NO.59836 OF 2014 (GM-KIADB) WRIT PETITION NO.59837 OF 2014 (GM-KIADB) WRIT PETITION NO.4581 OF 2015 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.4582/2015:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S R B STEEL AND ALLOYS, GOKULAM, NO.3C/804, 8^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, BANASWADI, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 033.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY (KIADB), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

¶16

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K B MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION LETTER DATED 29.12.2014 AT ANNEX-L PASSED BY THE R-3 AT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE OTHER RESPONDENTS HEREIN.

¶20

IN W.P.NO.59836/2014:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

M/S R B STEEL AND ALLOYS, GOKULAM, NO.3C/804, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, BANASWADI, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 033.

¶23

…PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY(KIADB), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶27

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶28

¶29

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.N SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1

¶32

SRI. K B MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRICE FIXATION AT THE RATE OF RS.73,00,000/PER ACRE IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 5.6.2014 AT ANN-H PASSED BY THE R-3 AT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE OTHER RESPONDENTS HEREIN.

¶34

IN W.P.NO.59837/2014:

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

M/S R B GLASS & PLYWOOD, 7^TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560 033. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NARESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY.

¶37

…PETITIONER

¶38

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY(KIADB), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶41

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR,

¶42

¶43

KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶44

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. N SREEDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K B MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶47

¶48

IN W.P.NO.4581/2015:

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

M/S R B GLASS AND PLYWOOD, 7^TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, HBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560 033. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NARESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY.

¶51

…PETITIONER

¶52

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY(KIADB), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶55

¶56

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶57

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶58

…RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI. N SREEDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K B MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶60

¶61

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The essential grievance in all these petitions is against

¶64

the demand of additional amount which does not have, according to their counsel any justification whatsoever; learned counsel also argues that his clients have been singled out for this discriminatory treatment and therefore, the impugned action, in addition to being without jurisdiction is

¶65

¶66

violative of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India; in addition, he submits that the amount now demanded does not have any normative basis and therefore, is unjust & arbitrary in the light of Apex Court decision in E.P.ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, AIR 1974 SC 555 .

¶67

After service of notice, the State having entered appearance through the learned HCGP and the KIADB having been represented by its Senior Panel Counsel vehemently oppose the petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed; KIADB has filed the Statement of Objections supporting the demand for additional amount, in substance contending that what was paid by the petitioners was only a tentative price and that now the valuation has been made.

¶68

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶69

(a) The industrial plots of considerable size have been allotted to the petitioners on the basis of tentative price,

¶70

¶71

subject to a specific condition that the actual price that was yet to be determined later would be indicated to them in due course; in fact, clause (3) of the payment schedule itself states; this apart, clause 16 of the allotment letter had made it very clear to the petitioners that they would be required to pay the additional amount towards the allotment price; it reads: “ the Board reserves its right to increase the tentative price of the land, indicated in this letter after completion of all developmental works and finalization of court awards, if any. ”; petitioners have accepted the tentative payment schedule indicated by the respondent-KIADB and have made that payment on that basis.

¶72

(b) There is force in the submission of KIADB Panel Counsel that the reasonableness of the price of allotment has to be adjudged inter alia on the basis of costs of acquisition of the land, layout formation charges, development charges, levies and such other factors; this apart, there will be Reference Cases in which pursuant to the compensation amount awardable to land owners stands subsequently as rightly submitted by the Panel Counsel; that being the position, the action of the respondents cannot be faltered.

¶73

¶74

¶75

for the petitioners that at least if his clients now pay the amount in demand with whatever interest and other charges legally leviable, the respondent-KIADB should not rescind the allotment of the land; justice of the case warrants that a fair proposal of the kind coming from the petitioners needs to be favourably considered by the respondent-KIADB in accordance with the extant rules; thus, if the petitioners make the entire payment including the interest and such other charges levied within an outer limit of three months, their allotments shall not be cancelled; however, in the event, the petitioner fail to make the payment as demanded within the time, their allotments may be cancelled and the amount paid by them subject to lawful deductions, if any, be refunded to them.

¶76

In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed off with the above observations, costs having been made easy.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

cbc

M/S R B Steel and Alloys v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S R B Steel and Alloys v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramachandra Nayaka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Abdul Khuddus Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

K B Lingaraju Vs the Deputy Registrar

Miss Anuradha Baliga Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S P Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Nischal Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka