Karnataka High Court
Samarth Enterprises vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 14 July, 2022
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No. 102169 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 102169 OF 2021 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SAMARTH ENTERPRISES, A PROPRIETORSHIP
FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI.FAKIRGOWDA S/O CHANNABASANGOWDA PATIL,
AGE 66 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, RAJATGIRI,
KALAGHATAGI ROAD, DHARWAD.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
& EXECUTIVE MANAGER.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER &
THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE,
PLOT NO.35/A, LAKKAMANAHALLI
INDUSTRIAL AREA, PB ROAD,
DHARWAD-580004.
3. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
DHARWAD-580004.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 102169 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
LETTER DATED 24/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS., J (ORAL)
This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner was
before this Court in W.P. No. 102964/2017, calling in question a
demand notice dated 16-21.12.2016. This Court by order dated
22.11.2018 allowed the writ petition, quashing the demand notice
and directed the respondent-KIADB to reconsider fixation of final
price in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of M/s Prakash Dal Mills. The respondent-KIADB took
up the matter before the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.
100434/2019. The Hon'ble Division Bench, by order dated
19.12.2019 disposed of the appeal with a direction to the KIADB to
fix the final price and thereupon call the respondent to pay the
same towards final price. Consequent thereto, the impugned
communication dated 24.06.2020 at Annexure-P has been made
by the respondent-KIADB.
WP No. 102169 of 2021
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has
been no change in the demand made by the respondent-KIADB.
As per the earlier demand made, the respondent-KIADB has once
again reiterated that the final price shall be Rs.6,07,447/-.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner would also draw
attention of this Court to the reasoning contained in the impugned
communication that the decision of the authorities are based on a
circular dated 06.02.2009 issued by the Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Member of the KIADB. Learned counsel submits that
even according to the said circular the case of the petitioner would
fall under Category-D in the operative portion of the circular and not
under Category-C.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB would
contend that the case of the petitioner falls under Category-C of the
Circular.
4. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the
petition papers, this Court finds that the respondent-KIADB is
required to reconsider the determination of the final price in terms
of its own circular dated 06.02.2009 where the guidelines provide
as follows:
WP No. 102169 of 2021
"a. To determine the final price at Rs.9.75 lakhs per acre
in respect of lands allotted to the tentative price of Rs.6.50
lakhs per acre (50% hike).
b. To determine the final price at Rs.18.75 lakhs per acre
in respect of lands allotted at the tentative price of Rs.15
lakhs per acre (25% hike).
c. To determine the actual price per acre at Rs. 6.00
lakhs per acre.
d. To levy final price at 50% of the average tentative price
in respect of transfer of lease hold right cases.
---
5. There is substance in the argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner's case would fall under
Category-D, since even as per the agreement entered into between
the petitioner and the respondent-KIADB on 28.08.2003 which is
furnished as Annexure-R1 along with statement of objections filed
at the hands of the respondent-KIADB, the petitioner herein is a
transferee of leasehold rights from the original allottee M/s Sprain
Engineering Works. Therefore, there is no reason why the
respondent-KIADB should not consider the case of the petitioner
under Category-D which is meant for transferees of leasehold
rights. In that view of the matter, the matter requires
reconsideration at the hands of the respondent-KIADB.
WP No. 102169 of 2021
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned communication dated 24.06.2020 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
The matter stands remanded back to the respondent-KIADB
to reconsider the case of the petitioner in fixing the final price in the
light of the observation made hereinabove.
The entire exercise shall be completed as early as possible
and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
SD
JUDGE
BVV
