Dismissed

Mr Joseph Johnson v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/10437/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged KIADB demand notices revising the allotment price for an industrial plot from Rs.30 lakhs to Rs.68 lakhs and the cancellation of his allotment. The Court held no completed allotment existed; the price was to be fixed by the Board at allotment. Petition dismissed with refund of deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; respondent No.1-Board directed to refund petitioner's paid amount within four weeks.

Mr Joseph Johnson Vs Karnataka Industrial Area… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10437 OF 2014 (GM-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR JOSEPH JOHNSON S/O JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.84 "BETHEL", AGS LAYOUT OFF NEW BEL ROAD BANGALORE-560054

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) 14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, R P BUILDING NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY/CONVENOR

¶13

DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KIADB ZONAL OFFICE 92-P, NEAR RIM HOSPITAL SIRAGATE POST TUMKUR-572106

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICES VIDE NO. KIADB/AA/AA/TU/694/964/2013-14 DT.2.7.13, AS PER ANN-E, &

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶18

NOTICE NO. KIADB/AA/TU/694/3768/2013-14 DATED 12.2.14, AS PER ANN-G AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

a. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the demand notices vide No.KIADB/Aa/Tu/694/964/2013-14, dated 02.07.2013, as per Annexure-E, and notice vide No.KIADB/AA/Tu/694/3768/2013-14 dated 12.02.2014, as per Annexure-G

¶24

b. Issue any other writ or direction, directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the Allotted Land to the Petitioner, in Industrial Area Plot No.190-A of Vasanthnarasapura Industrial Area, 1^st Phase, Tumkur.

¶25

c. Issue any other direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the fact and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

The Petitioner had approached the respondent – KIADB on 15.06.2011 for allotment of an industrial site in Vasanthnarasapura Industrial Area, I Phase, Tumkur. In furtherance of which, a meeting of the Land Allotment Committee was held wherein the request of

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶28

the Petitioner was considered and it was resolved that

¶29

one acre of land would be allotted in Vasanthanarasapura Industrial Area, I Stage subject to availability or in Vasanthanarasapura 2^nd Stage Industrial Area after completion of the acquisition proceedings and formation of layout. The applicant should pay the cost of land as fixed by the Board at the time of issue of allotment letter.

¶30

Subsequently, the respondent informed the Petitioner that an initial deposit of 20% of total cost of land being Rs.30,00,000/- was required to be made and the Petitioner as such made payment of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of a demand draft for Rs.4,50,000/- and another demand draft for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Receipt thereof has been issued by the respondent – KIADB on 19.07.2011 and 26.07.2011 respectively.

¶31

After the acceptance of the said amounts, the respondents had issued a letter on 05.08.2011 as per Annexure-D informing the Petitioner that the land

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶33

which had been identified for allotment viz., Plot No.190-A of Vasanthanarasapura Industrial Area was subject matter of a court case in O.S.No.702/2007 and as such, it was informed to the Petitioner that only after the said resolution of the dispute, the issue of allotment letter would be considered.

¶34

On 02.07.2013, vide Annexure-E, the respondent – KIADB informed the Petitioner that the allotment rate would be Rs.68,00,000/- and taking into account the amount already deposited, the balance amount was called for to be paid by the Petitioner. The Petitioner vide its letter dated 18.07.2013 replied to the same indicating that the earlier allotment value having been indicated to be Rs.30,00,000/-, the Petitioner having made payment of 20% of the said amount, the respondent could not increase the allotment value to Rs.68,00,000/- and that such revision was not acceptable or applicable to the Petitioner and as such, the Petitioner called upon the Respondent to issue allotment letter at Rs.30,00,000/- per acre which the

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶36

Petitioner indicates that he would be ready to make payment of balance amount.

¶37

The said reply of the Petitioner was considered by 323^rd meeting of the KIADB and rejected vide its letter dated 12.02.2014 at Annexure-G, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that since the Petitioner has not come forward to make payment of the revised allotment value, no allotment could be made. It is challenging the same, the Petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

The submission of Sri.Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that once the Petitioner had been informed of the tentative cost at Rs.30,00,000/-, no increase in the allotment value could be made; the Petitioner had planned his business on that value and any increase in the value would not be beneficial to the Petitioner and would not make the business sustainable. The respondent has no authority to increase the value from Rs.30,00,000/to Rs.68,00,000/- unilaterally and as such, his submission

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶40

is that the impugned demand notice at Annexure-E dated 02.07.2013 and notice dated 12.02.2014 are required to be quashed and the respondent be directed to issue an allotment letter and consequently execute a lease-cum-sale agreement with the Petitioner.

¶41

Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2-KIADB would submit that there is no allotment of land made only a tentative cost was indicated. It was made very clear that cost of the land as fixed by the Board at the time of issuance of the allotment letter has to be paid. This was so done in view of the fact that site to be allotted was yet to be finalized as also the cost of the acquisition not being crystallized and likely to undergo a change. It is only after the compensation payable to the landowners upon the acquisition of the land; the actual amount liable to be paid by each of the allottee on allotment would have to be crystallized and the allottee make payment of the said amount.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶44

In the present matter, it is submitted that the Board has taken into consideration the cost of acquisition including the compensation liable to be paid to the land owners and has fixed the allotment rate at a sum of Rs.68,00,000/-, which he submits is also tentative since the process of ascertaining the cost of compensation payable had not been finalized and crystallized. This amount of Rs 68,00,000/- was also likely to undergo revision on the acquisition being completed. When the Petitioner was not willing to make payment of even this tentative cost of Rs.68,00,000/-, the Respondent had no option but to cancel the tentative allotment, which had been made earlier.

¶45

Heard Sri.Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers.

¶46

The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is whether a tentative allotment of

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶48

land for which a tentative price had been fixed, could be claimed to be an allotment at the tentative price fixed or would KIADB have the powers to revise the tentative cost indicated in such a tentative allotment?

¶49

From the perusal of the documents, it is clear that there is no allotment letter per se which has been issued in favour of the Petitioner. On the basis of the application which has been made by the Petitioner, the Allotment Committee in the meeting held on 22.06.2011 had tentatively agreed to allot one acre of land subject to availability after completion of the acquisition proceeding at the cost to be fixed by the Board at the time of issuance of the allotment letter. A perusal of the said resolution indicates that there are several aspects which are yet to be finalised. Firstly, the acquisition was to be completed; secondly on the acquisition being completed, one acre of land was required to be available for allotment to the Petitioner and thirdly the cost was to be determined at the time the allotment letter was to be issued.

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶51

The contention of Sri.Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that this resolution would amount to allotment therefore cannot be accepted. Many of the requirements of a contract to be complete including the extent of land and the cost of land was not known to any of the parties nor was it agreed to when the resolution on 22.06.2011 was passed. It was for that reason that it was clearly intimated to the Petitioner that the allotment would be subject to availability of land and that the cost to be fixed by the Board.

¶52

Subsequently, the Petitioner had followed up with the Respondent; the Respondent on 02.07.2013 had indicated that the tentative cost of acquisition of the allotment would be Rs.68,00,000/- and 20% thereof was called upon to be paid by the Petitioner. Again in this letter also it was indicated that this cost was tentative and the final rate would be fixed after the acquisition is completed. The payment of 20% of

¶53

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶54

Rs.68,00,000/- was called upon to be made for the purpose of issuance of the allotment letter.

¶55

This amount was not paid by the Petitioner. The Petitioner claiming that he was willing only to make payment of sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. The application of the Petitioner having been made in the year 2010, the resolution of the Allotment Committee having been made in the year 2011, the demand for the additional amount having been made on 02.07.2013 when the acquisition was still pending completion. The Petitioner having been put on notice that the allotment would be made as per the amount specified as on the date of the allotment letter, the Petitioner cannot now rely upon the resolution of the Allotment Committee held on 22.06.2011 contending that the price fixed there would be the final price. In fact, the resolution did not indicate any price. It was only subsequently that a tentative price was indicated.

¶56

11 -

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶58

The Petitioner's right flows from the said resolution dated 22.06.2011 which is subject to the cost of the land to be fixed by the Board at the time of issuance of the allotment letter. The Petitioner cannot therefore in my considered opinion contend that the Board has no power to fix the price at the time of issuance of the allotment letter and the tentative price indicated in the year 2011 is required to be adhered to by the respondent-Board.

¶59

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the tentative price fixed immediately after the resolution of the allotment committee was only tentative in nature and the Board had all the power and authority to fix the actual cost of land after taking into account the amount expected by the Board in acquiring the land. The Petitioner not willing to make payment of these amounts, the Petitioner cannot have any vested interest in the allotment. The cancellation made by the respondent-Board on the Petitioner not making payment of the amounts is proper and justified. I find

¶60

12 -

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:44151 WP No. 10437 of 2014

¶62

no reason to interfere with the said order. The petition

¶63

stands dismissed .

¶64

The amount paid by the Petitioner is directed to be refunded by respondent No.1-Board in terms of applicable law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶65

Pending IA stands disposed

¶66

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶67

PRS

¶68

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Mr Joseph Johnson v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Joseph Johnson 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

Sri Devasya Ramanna Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.v.Ramesh Vs the Additional Registrar of Co. Operative Societies ( Housing and Misc.

S K Ramachandra Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Karishma Praveen K @ Karishma K Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishnu School of Nursing Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Deepa a Vs the State of Karnataka