Allowed

M/S. M.K Rice Industries v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024WP/23361/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an industrial plot allottee, challenged a Government Order imposing a 99-year lease term later than his application. Relying on a subsequent Government Notification restoring 10-year lease terms for certain enterprises, the Court allowed the petition and directed KIADB to reconsider the case and extend the benefit subject to payment of dues.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; KIADB directed to reconsider the petitioner's case under the 2017 notification and extend the benefit of 10-year lease subject to payment of dues.

M/S. M.K Rice Industries Vs State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33591 WP No. 23361 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23361 OF 2015 (GM-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. M.K RICE INDUSTRIES NO.2405/1342, 3^RD CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT, MANDYA- 571 401 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.MOHAMMED SADIQULLA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LAKSMY IYENGAR SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.V. VINAY., AND SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA by SUMA B N REPRESENTED BY Location: High ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO Court of Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 4^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:33591 WP No. 23361 of 2015

¶17

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

ASSISTANT SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KRS ROAD, METIGAHALLI, MYSORE - 570 016.

¶19

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA - 571 401 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R5; SRI. I. GOPALAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED:07.08.2014 VIDE ANNEX-J CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE R-5 BE DIRECTED TO EXECUTE A LEASE CUM SALE AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN ALTERNATIVE QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED.07.08.2014 AT ANENX-J IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO CONDITION NO.II.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:33591 WP No. 23361 of 2015

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner who was an allottee to an extent of 1 Acre of land in Plot No.54-C of Gejjalagere Industrial Area, Maddur, Mandya District as per Allotment Letter dated 09.12.2014 is before this Court seeking declaration that the Government Order dated 07.08.2014 produced at Annexure-J cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner and for consequent relief of direction to the respondent No.5 to execute Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in favour of the petitioner, as per the terms prevailing period to the said Government Order dated 07.08.2014.

¶29

There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner had sought for allotment of industrial plot during the year 2009 and was allotted 1 Acre of land as noted above in terms of the Allotment Letter dated 09.12.2014. While allotting the said land the respondent-authority had indicated the allotment of the said land was on the lease basis for a period of 99 years and tentative premium

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33591 WP No. 23361 of 2015

¶31

payable for the said land was fixed at Rs.40 Lakhs per acre. Petitioner was called upon to pay 30% of the tentative premium and was required to pay the balance amount within 180 days.

¶32

By Communication dated 18.12.2014 produced at Annexure-F petitioner has requested that the allotment of land of the petitioner be considered on the basis of the lease-cum-sale agreement to be executed for a period of 10 years as per the Rules and Regulations which were prevalent at the time when he made an application and not on the basis of lease-cum-sale agreement for a period of 99 years which were introduced subsequently at the time allotment of plot. However, petitioner had also in the said letter requested that the price of the land be fixed at Rs.30 Lakhs as per the Rules and Regulations and not Rs.40 Lakhs as per the new Regulations.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33591 WP No. 23361 of 2015

¶34

It appears that condition of 99 years lease

¶35

period was imposed on the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 11.09.2014 produced at Annexure-J while, the process of application of the petitioner had taken place much prior to that. It is this change of standards of consideration of application of the petitioner has constrained him to approach this Court.

¶36

It appears subsequent to filing of the writ petition the Government has issued another notification dated 11.07.2017 seeking to restore the Rules that were prevalent at the time of petitioner making the application for allotment of plot.

¶37

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the subsequent notification which is produced at Annexure-K dated 11.07.2017 along with an Interlocutory Application No.1/2022 seeking amendment to the writ petition submit that the respondent-State Government has now resorted to restore the old Rules and Regulations which were

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33591 WP No. 23361 of 2015

¶39

prevalent prior to issuance of the Notification at AnnexureJ. In that, the land is sought to be granted on the basis of 10 years of lease instead of 99 years of lease. In respect of the grant made in favour of the applicants who are considered/ categorized into micro, small and medium enterprises. Hence, seeks for extension of benefit of the said policy to the petitioner as well.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent -KIADB does not dispute that in view of the subsequent development the petitioner would be entitled for grant of land on a 10 years lease basis and not 99 years lease basis as per Annexure-J. He however, hasten to add the petitioner be entitled for such benefit subject to petitioner paying all amount due and payable in terms of the Letter Of Allotment.

¶41

8 Submission is taken on record.

¶42

In view of the above admitted position, petition is allowed. Respondent No.2-KIADB is directed to

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:33591 WP No. 23361 of 2015

¶45

reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 11.07.2017 as per Annexure-K and shall extend the benefit thereof. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the amount as indicated by the respondents in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶47

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

M/S. M.K Rice Industries v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. M.K Rice Industries v. State of Karnataka

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 Rathnakara Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Vijay Precision Dies Private Limited Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Koraga @ Keshava Vs National Highway Authority of India

Mr. Dinkar Arjan Dev Uppal Vs the Recovery Officer - 2

Mr. Basenapalli Prasad Vs Uco Bank

Sri. Bhaskar Reddy Vs District Registrar of Societies