M/S Chamundeshwar Electro Chemicals Vs the Secretary

M/S CHAMUNDESHWAR ELECTRO CHEMICALS PLOT NO .7-G2, SOMANAHALLI INDUSTRIA AREA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. REP. BY M. KRISHNA S/O LATE MANCHE GOWDA, C/O MARIKALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRO CHEMICALS R/O CHEMICAL PLOT NO .07/G-2, SOMANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISRTICT - 571 436.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, METAGALLY, K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:46374 WP NO.14737 OF 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, METAGALLY, K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016.

¶20

THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, METAGALLY, K.R.S ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE REMINDER NOTICE DATED 20^TH JUNE, 2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ZONAL OFFICE, MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-L; AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the Reminder Notice dated 20^th June, 2020 (Annexure-L) issued by the respondent No.3; inter alia, sought for direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to execute a registered Sale Deed in respect of industrial Plot No.7-G2 in Survey No.29 of Somanahally Village, Maddur Taluk as per the representations

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:46374 WP NO.14737 OF 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

dated 11^th April, 2007 (Annexure-F), 04^th April, 2019 (Annexure-J) and 06^th June, 2019 (Annexure-K).

¶31

The facts in nutshell for adjudication of this writ petition are that the respondent-KIADB has allotted Plot No.7G2 in Survey No.29 of Somanahally Village, Maddur Taluk to an extent of 1042 Sq.Mtrs to the petitioner. In this regard, Lease Agreement dated 02^nd February, 1996 (Annexure-A) was executed between the parties and accordingly, Possession Certificate dated 11^th October, 1998 was issued. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner established an unit for construction of the manufacturing of Battery Plates in the aforementioned Plot. In the meanwhile, as there is an excess land abutting to the Plot which was allotted to the petitioner was vacant, an offer was made to the petitioner by the respondent-KIADB on 22^nd February, 2017 (Annexure-D) to execute the registered Sale Deed by making payment of sale consideration of Rs.4,83,916/-. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has remitted the sale consideration on 07^th April, 2017 as per the

¶32

Bank Account Statement produced at Annexure-E. Thereafter, the petitioner has sought for execution of the registered Sale

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:46374 WP NO.14737 OF 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Deed, however, the respondent-KIADB made a claim for sum of

¶37

Rs.20,88,199/- towards excess land cost as per the reminder letter dated 20^th June, 2020 (Annexure-L). Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner presented this writ petition.

¶38

Heard Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶39

Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, though the respondent-KIADB had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,83,916/as per letter dated 22^nd February, 2017 (Annexure-D) in respect of excess land abutting to the Plot No.7-G2 of Somanahally Industrial Area, Maddur . Pursuant to the same, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.4,83,945 as per the Bank Account Statement produced at Annexure-E, however, the respondent-KIADB demanded the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.20,88,199/- in the impugned Reminder letter dated 20^th June, 2020 (Annexure-L), which is almost four time more than

¶40

the respondent-KIADB offered in its letter dated 22^nd February, 2017 (Annexure-D), and same is impermissible under law.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:46374 WP NO.14737 OF 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Accordingly, he sought for quashing the Reminder Letter dated 20^th June, 2020 (Annexure-L) issued by the respondent No.3.

¶45

Per contra, Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned

¶46

counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB submitted that the petitioner had delayed in making payment of Rs.4,83,916/- and the amount was raised on account of enhancement of cost of land, penalty, maintenance charges and other dues. Accordingly, he sought to justify the impugned Reminder Letter issued by the respondent No.3.

¶47

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of writ papers, the same would indicate that there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of Plot No.7-G2 to an extent of 1042 Sq.Mtrs. in Survey No.29 of Somanahally Village, Maddur Taluk as per Annexures 'A' and 'B'. It is also not in dispute that

¶48

the petitioner put-up an unit for manufacturing of Battery Plates in the said Plot. In the meanwhile, as there is an excess vacant land which is of marginal land to the petitioner, the respondent-KIADB directed the petitioner to purchase the same by making payment of sale consideration of Rs.4,83,916/- as

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:46374 WP NO.14737 OF 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

per letter dated 22^nd February, 2017 (Annexure-D). In furtherance of the same, the petitioner had paid the requisite amount on 07^th April, 2017 as shown in the Bank Account Statement produced at Annexure-E. In this regard, though there is a delay of two months in payment of sale consideration of Rs.4,83,916/-, the respondent-KIADB increased the sale consideration amount to an extent of Rs.20,88,199/- towards enhancement of cost of the land by issuing Reminder letter dated 20^th June, 2020. It is to be noted that, for a period of two months, the value of the land cannot be exceeded more than four time offered by the respondent-KIADB in its letter dated 22^nd February, 2017 (Annexure-D). Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the amount claimed by the respondentKIADB as per Reminder Letter dated 20^th June, 2020 (Annexure-L) is arbitrary in nature and same is required to be set-aside. It is further clarified that, since the petitioner had paid Rs.4,83,945/- on 07^th April, 2001 and as there is a delay of less than two months in making payment of sale consideration amount, the petitioner be saddled with interest at 12.75% per annum for two months for delay in making

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:46374 WP NO.14737 OF 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

payment of sale consideration to the respondent-KIADB. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

i) Writ Petition allowed;

¶59

ii) Reminder Letter dated 20^th June, 2020 (Annexure-L) issued by the respondent No.3 is hereby set-aside;

¶60

iii) The respondent-KIADB is directed to execute a registered Sale Deed in respect of the excess land for a sum of Rs.4,83,916/- with interest at 12.75% per annum for two months and also to execute a registered Sale deed in respect of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner as per Lease Agreement dated 02^nd February, 1996 (Annexure-A), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶61

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶62

ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

M/S Chamundeshwar Electro Chemicals v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chamundeshwar Electro Chemicals v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr P Vijayakumar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Mycon Constructions Limited Vs the Secretary

H P Suresh Vs Bank of Baroda

Sri. R. Nanjundegowda, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.K.Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Zamrud Pasha Vs Smt. Raziya Begum