Dismissed

Mantri Sierra Structures Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023WP/5216/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging preliminary and final notifications for land acquisition for a Sewage Treatment Plant located within a petitioner's approved industrial project area. The court held that project approval did not confer absolute rights to compel acquisition and dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to secure required land owner consent.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mantri Sierra Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5216 OF 2015 (GM-KIADB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MANTRI SIERRA STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.

¶7

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER

¶8

THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. GIRISH GUPTA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

2 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14/2, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶14

¶15

3 . KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶16

4 . BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD 1^ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶17

(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.2021)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI. V. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 and 4;

¶20

SRI. D. SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.CI:327SPQ:2005, BANGALORE DATED 06.02.2006 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI;743;SPQ;2007, BANGALORE, DATED 17.12.2007 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE EXTENT OF LANDS MENTIONED AT SL.NOS.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 AND 40 OF THE SAID ANNEXURES WHICH ARE ALSO COMPRISED OF THE GOVT. ORDER IDT 08 MOA 2008(13) DATED 27.05.2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F RESERVING THE LANDS BY THE SHLCC FOR THE PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶22

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 21.08.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged all proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification bearing No.CI:327:SPQ:2005, Bangalore, dated 06.02.2006 (Annexure - G) and final notification bearing No.CI-743SPQ-2007, Bangalore, dated 17.12.2007 in respect of the lands reserved by the State High Level Clearance Committee (henceforth referred to as 'SHLCC') for the project of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to acquire and allot

¶26

the lands set out in the Government Order No.IDT-08MOA-2008(13) dated 27.05.2008 and for a direction to the respondents to comply the order of the SHLCC dated 27.05.2008.

¶27

The facts as stated in the writ petition are that

¶28

the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The State

¶29

¶30

Government had promulgated the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 and had provided for approving projects under a Single Window scheme by High Level Committee and the respondent No.3 was a Nodal Agency. The petitioner claims that at the 10^th meeting of the SHLCC, the project proposed by the petitioner to establish "Integrated Township for IT/BT, IT Enabled Services and Commercial Complexes with Residential Infrastructure" in 330 acres 29 guntas of land comprised in various survey numbers of Ramagondanahalli, Amani Bellandur Khane, Khane Khandeya, Sorehunse, Varthur and Hagadur villages lying within Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, was approved. The SHLCC resolved and recommended to the respondent No.2 - KIADB to acquire and allot the aforesaid 330 acres 29 guntas of land on consent basis and the petitioner was directed to obtain consent from the land owners for a minimum 75% of the proposed area of the project before commencement of the acquisition process by KIADB. The petitioner contends that at the 13^th meeting of the SHLCC, the approval granted at the 10^th

¶31

¶32

meeting was reviewed and confirmed. However, certain additional conditions were incorporated. Later, the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce and Member Secretary, SHLCC, informed the petitioner that the proposal for establishment of "Integrated Township for IT/BT, IT enabled services and Commercial Complexes with Residential Infrastructure" with an investment of Rs.6857 crores is approved by the SHLCC and that a detailed Government Order would be issued. Subsequent thereto, a Government Order bearing No.ITD-08-MDA-2008(13), Bangalore, dated 27.05.2008 was issued according approval to the petitioner to establish "Integrated Township for IT/BT, IT Enabled Services and Commercial Complexes with Residential Infrastructure" in 330 acres 29 guntas of land comprised in various survey numbers of Ramagondanahalli, Amani Bellandur Khane, Khane Khandeya, Sorehunse, Varthur and Hagadur villages lying within Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner contends that it had either entered into agreement for sale or had purchased

¶33

¶34

the land or obtained the consent of the land owners of the land in excess of 200 acres and requested the KIADB to complete the acquisition of balance lands by compulsory acquisition as provided in the Government Order.

¶35

The petitioner contends that though it had been communicating with the respondent No.2 about the progress made in the implementation of the project and later by a request dated 11.03.2013 to proceed with the implementation of the project, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No.2 that a portion of the lands in the project area is already acquired by it for some other purpose. The petitioner claims that after enquiry, it found that the State Government by a notification dated 06.02.2006 proposed to acquire 35 acres 25 guntas in Amani Bellandur Khane village followed by a final notification dated 17.12.2007 for the purpose of establishing a Sewage Treatment Plant by the respondent No.4. The petitioner alleges that out of 35 acres 25 guntas notified, 27 acres 1 gunta lay within the land allotted to

¶36

¶37

the petitioner. The petitioner contends that it was not aware of the acquisition proceedings but it legitimately expected that the respondent No.2 would comply the order passed by the SHLCC dated 28.08.2007 and acquire the lands in respect of which the petitioner could not obtain consent from the land owners. The petitioner claimed that it had carried out various activities for implementation of the project and therefore, legitimately expected that the State and its agencies would abide by their promise. It further contends that certain other acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.12439/2009 where this Court granted an order of status quo resulting in delay in executing the project. Later, the land was classified as Residential in the RMP 2015 for Bangalore with some areas being shown in the Valley Zone. However, the allocation of the land for the utilities in the Draft Master Plan was removed in the Final Revised Master Plan 2015, which was approved by the State Government in terms of the notification dated

¶38

¶39

29.06.2007. The petitioner contends that since it was able to get consent from the owners of 80% of the total project area, the State Government was estopped from going back from its promise that it would acquire 20% of the land. The petitioner contends that W.P.No.12439/2009 was allowed on the ground of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and this order attained finality. The petitioner contends that after disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, it approached the respondent No.2 on 11.03.2013 requesting it to consider acquiring the land to the extent of 20% of the total project area. It claimed that at a meeting with the officers of the respondent No.2, it was informed that the land which was reserved for the project of the petitioner was acquired for some other public purposes, the details of which were not provided. Consequently, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 22.12.2014 requesting the respondent No.2 to initiate the process of the acquisition. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 purportedly proceeded to acquire the lands without application of mind and contrary to law. Therefore, the

¶40

¶41

petitioner is before this Court seeking for the reliefs mentioned above.

¶42

The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contended that once the SHLCC headed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister with the Principal Secretaries of various departments had approved the project of the petitioner, all the authorities had to fall in line to ensure that the approval of the project is given effect to, which included acquisition of 20% of the land from the owners. He submits that the conduct of the respondent No.2 in acquiring portions of the lands within the project area of the petitioner for the purpose of the respondent No.4 is illegal and a clear violation of the promise made to the petitioner. He submitted that the conduct of the respondent No.2 has resulted in denigrating the approval granted by the SHLCC. The learned Senior counsel relied upon the following authorities:-

¶43

1) Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka [2005 SCC Online Kar 654]

¶44

¶45

2) State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd., and another [(2004) 6 SCC 465]

¶46

3) Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd., vs. S.P. Gururaja and others [(2003) 8 SCC 567]

¶47

1. The State of Jharkhand and others vs. Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and another.

¶48

The respondent No.2 has filed the statement of objections and contended that the approvals granted by the SHLCC are subject to the availability of land. It contended that the acquisition for the installation of the Sewage Treatment Plant by the respondent No.4 was initiated well before the project of the petitioner. It contended that the project of the petitioner was approved subject to certain conditions namely, that the petitioner had to obtain and submit the consent of land owners before the respondent No.2 before commencement of acquisition process. It contends that if the petitioner could not obtain consent from small patches of land in the project area, then the respondent No.2 would step in to acquire the same for contiguity, compactness of project

¶49

¶50

site to facilitate implementation of the project. It contended that mere approval of the project proposal by the SHLCC did not ipso facto confer any right on the petitioner to compel acquisition of the land that was identified by the petitioner. It relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sooram Pratap Reddy vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District [(2008) 9 SCC 552] .

¶51

The respondent No.4 has also filed its

¶52

statement of objections more or less on the same lines as mentioned by the respondent No.2.

¶53

The learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 while reiterating the contentions set out in the statement of objections contended that the land acquired for the benefit of respondent No.4 is suitable for setting up of Sewage Treatment Plant as the sewage could be fed into the plant by gravity. He contends that the petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain consent of 75% of the land owners whose land lay within the project site of the

¶54

¶55

petitioner. He referred to an affidavit filed by the petitioner and stated that though the petitioner claimed that it had spent Rs.416.65 crores towards the consent, not a scrap of paper is produced before the Court. The learned Senior counsel contended that the acquisition of 35 acres 25 guntas of land for the respondent No.4 is for the benefit of the larger public. The Sewage Treatment Plant was planned and proposed in view of the mandate by the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization. The learned Senior counsel contended that the petitioner has not taken any steps of whatsoever nature to obtain the consent of 75% of the land owners from the year 2007 till the filing of this writ petition. He therefore, contends that the writ petition is a clear abuse of process of law and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

¶56

I have considered the submissions made by

¶57

the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4.

¶58

¶59

The proceedings of the 10^th meeting of the

¶60

SHLCC dated 28.08.2007 shows that the committee had resolved to recommend the respondent No.2 to acquire and allot 330 acres 29 guntas of land in different survey numbers of Ramagondanahalli, Amani Bellandur Khane, Khane Khandeya, Sorehunse, Varthur and Hagadur villages lying within Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, on consent basis. The petitioner was required to obtain consent from the land owners for a minimum 75% of the proposed area of the project before commencement of acquisition process by respondent No.2 - KIADB. At the 13^th meeting of the SHLCC, the project of the petitioner was reviewed and the decision of the SHLCC at the 10^th meeting was confirmed subject to the following additional conditions:-

¶61

(a) The petitioner shall reserve 20% of the built-up area in the residential area of the project for economically weaker sections.

¶62

(b) The petitioner shall provide consent of 80% of the land owners to the KIADB prior to commencement of the acquisition.

¶63

¶64

The State Government approved the project of the petitioner and issued a Government Order dated 27.05.2008, which was subject to condition inter alia namely, that the petitioner should provide consent of 80% of the land owners to the KIADB prior to commencement of acquisition. The approval of the project was duly notified in the State Gazette. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 had notified 35 acres 25 guntas of land in Amani Bellandur Khane for the purpose of the respondent No.4 in terms of a preliminary notification dated 06.02.2006 followed by a final notification dated 17.12.2007. From the year 2008 when the project of the petitioner was approved, till the filing of this petition, no steps are taken by the petitioner to obtain consent of 80% of the land owners. However, in order to keep the issue burning, the petitioner submitted representations dated 11.03.2013 and 22.12.2014 to the respondent No.2 requesting it to expedite the acquisition of the land. Since it is stated by the learned Senior counsel for the

¶65

¶66

respondent Nos.2 and 4 that the consent of 80% of the land owners is not placed before it, the petitioner had violated the fundamental conditions imposed by the State Government for approval of the project of the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4, mere approval of the project of the petitioner did not confer any right unless the petitioner took proper and sufficient steps to comply with the conditions attached to the order of approval by the SHLCC and the respondent No.1.

¶67

In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶68

Consequently, this writ petition fails and is

¶69

dismissed .

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

PMR

Mantri Sierra Structures Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mantri Sierra Structures Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri K G Suresh Vs Smt Jyothi S G

Mrs. Hu Xiaolin Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka by

Asha Devi Vs the State by Tilak Nagar P.S

Sri Chandran Vs State of Karnataka