IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.19527/2013(GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
ITASCA SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PREMISES, NO.18-A/19 DODDENEKUNDI INDUSTRIAL AREA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-48. KARNATAKA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MS. P. BHAVANA RAO ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI ABHINAV. R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDINGS, (OPP. RBI) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R2 TO HAND OVER THE ACQUIRED LANDS MEASURING 325 ACRES, SITUATED AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, IN RESPECT OF WHICH FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 7.5.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q VIDE SEC 28[8] OF THE ACT TO THE PETITIONER WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER (b) TO ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions from Sri Abhinav R. Anand, instructing counsel submits that in view of the representation Annexure-X dated 6.12.2012, if a direction is issued to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) to consider Annexure-X representation, the prayer (a) may be dismissed as not pressed.
2. The said submission is placed on record.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition in so far as prayer (a) is dismissed as not pressed.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that its project came to be approved by the State High Level Clearance Committee for establishment of V-Tech City in 325 acres of land. Pursuant to the said approval of State High Level Clearance Committee, the Government Order came to be issued on 16th January 2017, pursuant to which the KIADB initiated the process of acquisition by issuing preliminary and final notifications. The petitioner, as per approval paid additional compensation and obtained the consent of the respective land owners. The same was submitted to the KIADB. The KIADB carried out the entire acquisition proceedings by following the procedure established under the Act. The land owners have also received the entire compensation. The petitioner – company has in all invested a sum of Rs.318 crores towards the cost of acquisition. The KIADB despite having got possession of the said land and despite the approval of the State High Level Clearance Committee and Government Order, is refusing to allot 325 acres to the petitioner Therefore the petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent - KIADB as per Annexure-X dated 6.12.2012. Inspite of the same, till today, the 2nd respondent – KIADB has neither considered the representation nor passed any orders. Therefore the petitioner - company is before this Court for a writ of mandamus as prayed for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that though the petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.318 crores towards the cost of acquisition and despite the approval of the State High Level Clearance Committee and the Government Order, the 2nd respondent has not considered the petitioner’s representation as per Annexure-X dated 6.12.2012. The inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent - KIADB driven the petitioner unnecessarily before this Court for the reliefs sought for. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on instructions fairly submits that the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-X dated 6.12.2012 will be considered, if not already considered and disposed of, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
8. Learned Government Advocate submits that it is for the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in accordance with law.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner – company that the State Government has initiated acquisition proceedings on the request made by the KIADB and the land owners have received the entire compensation. According to the petitioner - company, it has invested a sum of Rs.318 crores towards the cost of acquisition and inspite of the KIADB having got the possession of the land and despite approval of the State High Level Clearance Committee and the Government Order, its representation has not been considered. Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 contended that since there was a dispute in view of the irregularity committed by the petitioner – company with regard to obtaining consent letters from the land owners and also with regard to disbursement of compensation, the dispute pending before the Lokayukta and hence the representation was not considered and therefore he sought to dispose off the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the lands are acquired for the purpose of the petitioner – company and the possession of lands is taken by the KIADB. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s project came to be approved by the State High Level Clearance Committee and pursuant to which, the Government Order also came to be issued.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the 2nd respondent – KIADB is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-X dated 6.12.2012, if not already considered and disposed of, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
11. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits or demerits of the case. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.
Sd/- JUDGE Gss/-