Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Industrial Area vs M/S. Acv Aero Industries on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
W.A. No.606/2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.606/2021 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally signed BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
by RUPA V
Location: High 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-III
Court Of AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Karnataka KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14/3, KIADB ZONAL OFFICE
CFC BUILDING
MAHARSHI ARVINDA BHAVANA
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SR. ADV., FOR
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. M/S. ACV AERO INDUSTRIES
NO.297, 19TH MAIN, M.C. LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
W.A. No.606/2021
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SMT. ANJINAMMA.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. ADV., FOR
SRI. S.G. PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADV., FOR R1
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 15/12/2020 IN WP NO.15121/2018 (GM-KIADB)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 12.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
W.A. No.606/2021
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961, challenging the judgement dated 15.12.2020 passed the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15121/2018 (GM-KIADB).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that respondent No.1 averred that it is an absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 6 acres in Sy.No.101 and 6 acres in Sy.No.102 of Arebinnamangala Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and the said land came to be notified by the State Government for acquisition. The said acquisition was challenged by the respondent No.1 in W.P.No.14154/2008. The writ petition came to be disposed of by directing the appellants herein to allot 6 acres of land at Sy.No.101 of Arebinnamangala Village to the respondent No.1 and further directed the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.3 Crores towards the cost of development and held that the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR respondent No.1 is not entitled for any compensation in respect of the acquired land. The appellants herein, collected the development charges of Rs.3 Crores and thereafter, executed a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the respondent No.1 by imposing various conditions. The appellants issued notice dated 07.02.2018 stating that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement executed in favour of the respondent No.1 and thereafter, cautioned the respondent No.1 with regard to the termination of the lease and resumption of possession of the land. The notice issued by the appellant No.1 and the lease-cum-sale agreement were challenged before the learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the Learned Additional Government Advocate -5- NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR for the respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-land owners.
4. Sri.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is no arbitrariness in the action of the appellant-Board as the case of Sri.K.V.S.Prakash is different from that of the respondent No.1. Sri.K.V.S.Prakash was the owner of 20 acres 2 guntas of land acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Government framed the land sharing scheme vide order dated 13.08.2007 which was modified on 13.10.2010 under which the land loser was entitled for allotment of 9,583 sq. ft. of developed land per acre in lieu of the compensation and as per the State Government policy. Hence, the appellants, in its meeting held on 25.05.2013 resolved to allot land in favour of Sri.K.V.S.Prakash and accordingly, allotted 5.27 acres whereas, the respondent No.1 has obtained the approval -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR of its project from the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the SLSWCC') and the said Committee recommended for allotment of 6 acres of land by collecting the development charges which was considered by this Court in W.P.No.14154/2008 and ordered to allot 6 acres of land by collecting the development charges.
5. It is submitted that the respondent would have been allotted 2.64 acres if he had opted for the land sharing scheme of the State Government and no compensation was payable for the entire 12 acres acquired from the respondent No.1. Hence, there is no justification for the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion that there is discrimination between the respondent No.1 and Sri.K.V.S.Prakash. It is further submitted that the conduct of the respondent No.1 in approaching the Court has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. The respondent No.1 was allotted land on 05.06.2013 with -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR terms and conditions and thereafter, the lease-cum-sale agreement was entered on 31.12.2013 and even after accepting the terms and conditions stated in the agreement, a writ petition was filed. It is also submitted that the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement clearly indicates that if the allottee failed to discharge the obligation, the appellants have every authority to initiate proceedings for resumption of land. By ignoring the agreed terms, the learned Single Judge directed to execute the absolute sale deed which is contrary to the material on record. It is contended that without there being any fault of the appellants, the learned Single Judge imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellants which was uncalled for as the officials of the appellants have discharged their duties as per the Act, Rules and regulations for contravention of the clauses of the lease- cum-sale agreement. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR
6. Per contra, Sri.S.S.Naganand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the appellants have clearly admitted in the earlier round of litigation that they would allot 6 acres of land, which has been extracted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and now, they cannot act contrary to their own undertaking. It is submitted that the case of Sri.K.V.S.Prakash is similar to that of respondent No.1 which is evident from the Board's decision dated 25.05.2013 as the land was allotted to Sri.K.V.S.Prakash as per the approval of the SLSWCC and not based on the land sharing scheme. It is further submitted that the appellant-Board in a similar situation, allotted the developed land by collecting development charges in favour of the land losers by executing re- conveyance deed and hence, the appellant-Board cannot discriminate between the respondent No.1 and similarly placed land losers. The action of the appellants is in violation of the principles of equality and fairness which -9- NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR has been observed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 is interested in executing the absolute sale deed in its favour at the earliest and would not insist on cost. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides.
8. The point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge needs any interference"
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR
9. The aforesaid point is answered in the negative for the following reasons:
(a) The partner of Respondent No. 1 (M/s. ACV Aero Industries) was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 12 acres of land comprising in Sy.No.101 (6 acres) and Sy.No.102 (6 acres) in Arebinnamangala Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. A preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act was issued on 07.08.2006 for acquisition of 12 acres in the region, followed by a final notification on 25.09.2008. The land owner challenged the acquisition by filing W.P.No.14154/2008 before this Court.
(b) During the pendency of the writ petition, the SLSWCC approved the project of the respondent No.1 in July-August 2010 and recommended allocation of 6 acres. W.P.No.14154/2008 was disposed on 23.07.2012 with directions to the appellant-Board to allot 6 acres in Sy.No.101 to the respondent No.1. The respondent No. 1
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR was directed to pay Rs.3 Crores as development charges and was held not entitled to any compensation for the acquired land. The said order was passed based on the submissions of the appellants that the respondent No.1 would be given 6 acres of the land after receipt of Rs.3 Crores towards the development charges. Pursuant to the Court order and payment of Rs.3 Crores, the appellant- Board allotted 6 acres on 05.06.2013 and handed over possession on 27.06.2013. On 31.12.2013, the respondent No.1 executed a 10 year lease-cum-sale agreement with the appellant-Board containing various restrictive conditions and obligations. The respondent No.1 approached the appellants and requested to execute the absolute sale deed without any conditions. The said request was based on the allotment of land by the appellants to Sri.K.V.S.Prakash which was not considered by the Board. However, the appellants issued a notice for resumption of land on the ground that there is breach of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement for non- implementation of the project within the stipulated time.
(c) The contention of the appellants that the allotment to the respondent No.1 is as per the Government order of land sharing scheme and on that basis, the respondent No.1 cannot seek absolute sale deed, has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, it is the appellants who assured the respondent No.1 that they would allot 6 acres of land in Sy.No.101 if the respondent No.1 deposits a sum of Rs.3 Crores towards the development charges. This was the solemn assurance of the appellants to the respondent No.1 and based on such assurance, the writ petition was disposed of. In the said writ petition, the petitioners therein have assailed the acquisition proceedings. In other words, on the assurance of the appellants herein, the challenge to the acquisition proceedings were given up as the appellants agreed to allot 6 acres of land by
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR collecting Rs.3 crore towards the development charges. The appellant-Board now taking a contrary stand is impermissible which amounts to approbate and reprobate. The records also indicate that in the case of similarly placed land losers, the appellant-Board considered the request for allotment of the developed land by collecting the development charges by executing proper conveyance. The learned Single Judge, considering the parity, ordered to execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
(d) The contention of the appellant-Board that the case of the respondent No.1 falls under the land sharing scheme, has no merit as the appellant-Board itself had promised to allot 6 acres of land to the respondent No.1 while disposing the earlier writ petition on 23.07.2012. It is also to be noticed that on the date of disposal of the earlier writ petition, the land sharing scheme was very
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR much available and the appellant-Board had not insisted for allotment of land to the respondent No.1 based on the relied Government order. The learned Single Judge considered the conduct of the appellant-Board, made an observation with regard to its action and proceeded to impose the cost. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, in all fairness submitted that the respondent No.1 would not insist for payment of cost as ordered by the learned Single Judge if the appellant-Board takes immediate steps to implement the order of the learned Single Judge. Taking note of the submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing for both the parties and considering the manner in which the appellant-Board acted, we do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. However, considering the plea of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant- Board, we propose to modify the order of the learned Single Judge only to the extent of imposing cost by
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB W.A. No.606/2021 HC-KAR upholding the said order. We do not find any perversity or error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by upholding the order of the learned Single Judge except the order for payment of cost.
No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2