Disposed

Sri Kasturi Rangan v. Karnataka State Small Industries

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022WP/4414/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner against KSSIDC. The court recorded a joint memorandum signed by both parties agreeing to terms regarding payment of penalties, execution of a sale deed upon fulfillment of specific conditions, and establishment of the industrial unit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed based on the terms of the joint memorandum agreeing to payment, restoration of allotment, construction, and eventual execution of the sale deed.

Sri Kasturi Rangan Vs Karnataka State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4414/2014 (GM-KSSIDC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI KASTURI RANGAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI K.B. SADASHIVAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.37 & 40 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, KONANAKUNTE, BANGALORE – 560 062. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA CONCERN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 010. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA CONCERN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. ... RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI RITHISH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2012, ISSUED BY THE R2, AT ANNEXURE-AC. QUASH THE NOTICE IN FORM-A, DATED 14.02.2013, ISSUED BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE -AF. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE & REGISTER ABSOLUTE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE LEASE-CUMSALE AGREEMENT DATED 28.05.2006, IN RELATION TO PLOT NO.Q-15 AS PER ANNEXURE-H INCLUDING ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Learned counsel for the parties are present before the Court.

¶18

On 29/10/2022, this Court passed a detailed order, which reads as under:

¶19

“The petitioner in this writ petition is assailing the order dated 30.07.2012 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-AC, seeking for quashing of the notice in Form No.A dated 14.02.2013 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-AF and also seeking for a direction to respondent to execute and register absolute Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 28.05.2006 as per Annexure-H.

¶20

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent states that by a decision of the Board in its 360^th Meeting held on 15.09.2020 as regards the allotment of restoration policy, a revised order dated 08.05.2020 has been implemented and as requested by the petitioner for a change of the product is considered and was approved subject to payment of fee of Rs.11,800/- and also penalty of Rs.5,41,185/for restoration of the possession and as per the restoration of allotment policy, an order was issued on 08.05.2020 and the same was communicated to the petitioner herein on 16.10.2020.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the office orders and the proceedings held to come to the arrival of the allotment of restoration policy.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that subsequently the terms of the decision arrived as communicated to the petitioners on 16.10.2020 has been revised and a fresh communication was issued to the petitioner on 05.07.2022 calling upon the

¶25

¶26

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.14,20,670/towards the penalty for restoration of possession and a sum of Rs.11,800/- towards fee for change of the product. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that respondents have communicated the said revised penalty for restoration of possession and for the change of the product vide letter dated 05.07.2022 and specifically stated terms, which reads as under:

¶27

“ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 18.06.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ZÀað¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB 20.06.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀàµÀÖ£É PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ, «ªÀgÀuÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶28

G¯ÉèÃR-1 gÀAvÉ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï¸ÁÜ¥À£É ¤AiÀÄªÀÄzÀr PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä gÀÆ.14,20,670/- (vÉjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ) ¢£ÁAPÀB 31.12.2022 gÉÆ¼ÀUÁV ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶29

GvÀé£Àß §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì gÀÆ.11,800/- (vÉjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ) ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶30

¤ªÀð»¹zÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¤Ãw C£ÀéAiÀÄ

¶31

eÁjUÉÆ½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¸ÀÛgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è, DzÀgÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ªÀð»¹¸ÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ eÁjAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Àà¶ÖPÀj¹zÉ.

¶32

¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï¸ÁÜ¥À£É zÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GvÀà£Àß §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw¹ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï¸ÁÜ¥À£É DzÉÃ±À ¥ÀqÉzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ

¶33

¶34

CªÀ¢üAiÉÆ¼ÀUÁV PÉÊUÁjPÁ PÀlÖqÀ ¤«Äð¹ ±ÁvÀévÀ «zÀÄåvïZÀÒQÛ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢vÀ GvÀà£ÀßzÀ GvÁàzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ PÉÊUÁjPÉ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. ªÀ»ªÁn£À zÁR¯É ºÁUÀÆ PÀ¤µÀ× 4 jAzÀ 6 wAUÀ¼À «zÀÄåvïZÀÒQÛ ©®ÄèUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶35

¸ÀA«zsÁ£À §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁ°PÀvÀézÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj, ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á®ÄzÁjUÉ DzsÁgÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä EaÑ¹zÀ°è ªÀÄÆ® ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Á®ÄzÁjPÉAiÀÄ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 51% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥Á®£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀÄªÁV ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ G½zÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 49% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥Á®£ÀÄß PÀÄlÄA§zÉÆ¼ÀV£À ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀÝ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶36

¢£ÁAPÀB 16.10.2020 gÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹zÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄÄ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ PÉÆ£ÉUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀB 05.03.2022 gÀAzÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ »A¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÀ¼É ¤Ãw C£ÀéAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ¤UÀªÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶37

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ, UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢ü «¸ÀÛj¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À vÁvÁÌ°PÀ «zÀÄåvïZÀáQÛ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðzÀ ©¯ï ¤ÃrzÀgÉ, PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶38

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï¸ÁÜ¥À£ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¹zÀÞ«gÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DzÉÃ±À ¥ÀqÉzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÁV G¢ÝªÉÄ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ §UÉÎ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É «¥üÀ®gÁzÀ°è ºÀAaPÉ gÀzÀÝw ªÀiÁr, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤UÀªÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ J¯Áè ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄlÄÖUÉÆÃ®Ä ºÁQPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ C¨sÀåAvÀgÀ«®èªÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjzÉ.

¶39

¶40

vÀ¦àzÀ°è FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ºÀAaPÉ gÀzÀÝw ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. ”

¶41

The said submission and documents are placed on record.

¶42

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are agreeable to the terms enumerated in the letter dated 05.07.2022 addressed to the petitioner.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, does not dispute the letter being issued by the respondent on 05.07.2022 and would contend that the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum mentioned in the letter dated 05.07.2022 to the tune of Rs.14,20,670/towards penalty and Rs.11,800/- fee towards change of product by the end of December, 2022 i.e., on or before 31.12.2022. Provided that the respondent, after a period of 15 days on receipt of the amount stated supra approves the plan as submitted by the petitioner on 08.03.2019 for the change of the product and on such approval, the petitioner would carryout the construction of the factory as enumerated in the letter dated 05.07.2022 within a period of one year and would submit

¶44

¶45

running electricity bill for a period of 4 to 6 months and relevant documents to the effect the factory has been running in the said land. On such production of the documents, the respondents would execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶46

Said submission of the learned counsel for the parties are placed on record.

¶47

List this matter on 18.11.2022 at 2.30 p.m. to enable the learned counsel for the parties to file joint memo to that effect.”

¶48

On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was adjourned to today to enable the parties to file their joint memo to the said effect.

¶49

Learned counsel for the parties are present

¶50

before the Court and have filed the joint memo dated 18/11/2022 stating that they are agreeable to the terms enumerated in the communication dated

¶51

¶52

05/07/2022. On query, it has been accepted by both the parties. The joint memo reads as under:

¶53

“3. The above writ petition had come up before this Hon’ble Court on 29.10.2022. This Hon’ble Court after hearing at length and noticing the contents of the communication dated 05.07.2022 and the submissions made at the Bar has been pleased to adjourn the matter to enable the parties to file joint memo agreeing for the terms and conditions enumerated in the communication dated 05.07.2022 so also the acceptance of the said conditions by the parties. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the present joint memo is being filed agreeing for the below mentioned terms and conditions by both the parties:

¶54

i) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.14,20,670/towards penalty for restoration of allotment and a sum of Rs.11,800/- towards the fee for approval of change of product on or before 31.12.2022.

¶55

ii) Upon payment of the aforesaid amount, the respondents shall issue an order of

¶56

¶57

restoration of allotment of the schedule industrial plot in question within 15 days.

¶58

iii) The respondents shall approve the building plan submitted by the petitioner on 08.03.2019 if the same is in accordance with law or such other plan which would be in conformity with the Rules and Regulations of KSSIDC within 15 days/30 days from the date of deposit of the amount. The approval of such plan shall be suitable for establishing the industry for which the change of product has been approved.

¶59

iv) The petitioner shall construct the factory building within one year from the date of restoration of allotment/ sanction of building plan as per the sanctioned plan.

¶60

v) The petitioner shall commence the manufacturing process of the product and produce the documents to establish the running of industry and also produce the electricity bills for a period of 4 to 6 months.

¶61

10 -

¶62

vi) Upon production of such documents and information and upon inspection of the industrial unit that may be established by the petitioner, the respondents shall execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶63

vii) Till such time the absolute sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall continue as a Lessee of the schedule industrial plot in question.

¶64

viii) The petitioner shall bear the cost of registration of the absolute sale deed that may be executed by the respondents.

¶65

ix) Till the execution of the absolute sale deed, the petitioner shall not create any encumbrance or create any third party interest in respect of the schedule industrial plot.

¶66

x) If the petitioner fails to comply with the condition with regard to the construction of building and establishment of industry as mentioned above, the order of cancellation passed by the respondents would get restored and the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate

¶67

11 -

¶68

proceedings for recovery of the possession of the schedule plot.

¶69

xi) If the petitioner intends to bring the allotted plot under registered Partnership Firm, the petitioner should retain 51% share and 49% of the share shall be held by the family members. If such a request is made the same would be considered by KSSIDC as indicated in the letter dated 05.07.2022.

¶70

xii) Even after compliance of all the conditions stipulated above, if the KSSIDC does not execute the sale deed, it is open for the allottee to move this Hon’ble High court seeking re-opening of the Writ Petition to enforce the order/terms of the compromise.”

¶71

The joint memo is placed on record.

¶72

In terms of the joint memo, the writ

¶73

petition stands disposed accordingly.

¶74

¶75

SD/-

¶76

JUDGE

Sri Kasturi Rangan v. Karnataka State Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kasturi Rangan v. Karnataka State Small Industries

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 Karnataka Chemists and Druggists Association Vs Competition Commision of India

Smt. Reshma Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ramananda Gas Agency Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt v Anupama Vs the Managing Director

Irogbeun Uchenna Immaculate Vs the Union of India

M/S. New Suraksha Masco Meridian Vs the Karnataka Bank Limited