M/S Berggreuen Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. BERGGREUEN PROPERTIES PVT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO. 300, 3RD FLOOR, GOLD TOWER NO. 50, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025. (REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. CHETAN PRAKASH TAYAL) …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEKDAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY)

¶14

KARANTAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:19337 WP No. 164 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD MYSURU - 570 001.

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARK ROAD 2, PES COLLEGE CAMPUS NEAR DISTRICT COURT MANDYA - 571 401.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTIUTTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE LEASE CUM SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR CONVEYANCE OF 125 ACRES OF LAND BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION LETTER DATED 15TH OCTOBER 2022 AND 20TH NOVEMBER 2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 29 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:19337 WP No. 164 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The captioned petition is filed seeking direction against the respondents to execute a lease cum sale deed in favour of the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation letters dated 15.10.2022 and 20.11.2023 as per Annexure-A and B.

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4.

¶31

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶32

The petitioner asserts that it had approached respondent No.1–State with a proposal for development of an integrated township scheme in respect of land admeasuring 234 acres, owned by Mr. Chetan Tayal, Mr. Kusum Tayal and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Tayal. It is contended that the said comprehensive project was accepted by respondent No.1 and, pursuant thereto, a Memorandum of Understanding came to be executed. Thereafter, the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:19337 WP No. 164 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

proposal was recommended to respondent No.2 for the purpose of securing consent of the landowners and for further steps in respect of acquisition of the scheduled properties. The petitioner further contends that respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner–company to deposit the requisite amount towards acquisition, and accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.8,64,68,800/- and Rs.6,84,49,013/- during the years 2014–2015. It is stated that upon such deposit, respondent No.2 issued a preliminary notification and subsequently a final notification dated 12.04.2016, notifying acquisition of land to an extent of 165 acres 27½ guntas.

¶37

The primary grievance of the petitioner in the

¶38

present writ petition is that, despite the substantial amounts deposited as far back as in 2014–2015 and notwithstanding the issuance of the final notification, respondent No.2 has failed to take any further steps in furtherance of the acquisition proceedings. Alleging

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19337 WP No. 164 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

inaction on the part of respondent No.2, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct consideration of its representations dated 15.10.2022 and 20.11.2023, produced at

¶42

Annexures–A and B.

¶43

Upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 is under a legal obligation to examine the representations submitted by the petitioner in the backdrop of the preliminary and final notifications issued and the substantial amounts deposited by the petitioner–company during 2014–2015. The petitioner has thus demonstrated a subsisting legal right warranting consideration of its representations. Correspondingly, respondent No.2 is duty-bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the evident inaction, this Court finds it a fit case to issue necessary directions.

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:19337 WP No. 164 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

For the foregoing reasons, the following order is

¶48

passed:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed ;

¶51

ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 15.10.2022 and 20.11.2023, produced at Annexures–A and B, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law;

¶52

iii. Such consideration and decision shall be made within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

HDK

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

M/S Berggreuen Properties Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Berggreuen Properties Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

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 Hanumanthappa Lingadalli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. C T Muddukumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula Vs the Director General of Police

M/S Associated Human Resource Service Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited

Shaik Ameen Vs Gangadhar

Smt. Saraswathi Srinivas, Vs Hanumanth Nagar Co-Operative Bank Limited