Karnataka High Court
M/S Nanjundeshwara Tech Park vs The Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 3 November, 2023
Bench: K V Aravind
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.13304/2020 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
M/S NANJUNDESHWARA TECH PARK,
A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR,
K.R. NAGENDRA,
HAVING PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
SHANKAR INDUSTRIES,
SANTHEPET,
ARASIKERE-573 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
EAST WING,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED
17.3.2020 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-M. DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPLY AND REPRESENTATION
OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURES L AND N, FAVOURABLY
AND PURSUANTLY, EXECUTE THE LEASE-CUM-SALE
AGREEMENT AND ANY OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE
REQUIRED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.10.2023, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking
to quash the notice issued by the respondent bearing
No.KIADB/HO/Allot/Secy.-I/19729/17922/19-20, dated
17.03.2020 at Annexure-M and seeking mandamus to
consider the reply and representation at Annexures-L and
N, dated 12.09.2019 and 15.05.2020 respectively.
2. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern
carrying on business under the name and style
M/s.Najundeshwara Tech Park, engaged in the business of
constructing IT/BT buildings and establishing software
parks. The petitioner was allotted two acres of land in
Bengaluru I.T. Park, near Devanahalli International Airport,
subject to deposit of certain sums as stated in the letter
dated 18.10.2011. The petitioner has made deposits in
terms of receipts produced as Annexure-B, B1 to B9, dated
starting from 25.03.2011 to 29.06.2015.
3. The petitioner was issued allotment letter dated
24.01.2013 by allotting plot No.166 of Bengaluru I.T. Park
by the respondent indicating the amount to be deposited
as a tentative price as reflected in Annexure-C. The
petitioner was also issued confirmatory letter of allotment
by the respondent dated 30.07.2015, which would reflect
acknowledgment of receipt of 100% of the land cost. The
petitioner was further advised to take over the possession
of the land within one month from receipt of the letter
dated 30.07.2015. The respondent issued a letter to the
petitioner dated 28.10.2015 requesting the petitioner to
obtain the possession certificate by contacting the
concerned official of the respondent. The petitioner vide
letter at Annexure-F by expressing the reasons for delay in
obtaining the possession certificate requested for
extension of time. Possession certificate was issued by the
respondent in favour of the petitioner on 18.01.2018. By
letter dated 18.06.2018, the petitioner was requested by
the respondent to prepare the agreement papers and the
draft deed for 10 years lease in relation to plot No.166, Hi-
Tech, Defence and Aerospace Park (I.T. Sector), Industrial
Area, Bengaluru Urban District was issued. The petitioner
by letter dated 12.09.2019 requested execution of the
lease deed on the ground of ill-health of the proprietor of
the petitioner.
4. The respondent by Annexure-M, dated 17.03.2020
has proceeded to cancel the allotment for non-adherence
of time schedule of terms and conditions of allotment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the payments as required in the allotment letter have been
complied with and only delay was in executing the lease-
cum-sale agreement which would not lead to violation of
terms and conditions of allotment. It is further submitted
that in view of the allotment letter and possession
certificate, the respondent is required to follow the
procedure as prescribed in Section 34B of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as 'KIAD Act' for short). In terms of Section
34B of the KIAD Act, neither notice is issued nor an
opportunity of personal hearing provided. Hence, the
order of cancellation of allotment is in violation of
principles of natural justice.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the
above contention relied on the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.17059/2014 and W.P.No.19122/2014 (M/s.
Bharath Oil & Gas Corporation Ltd., vs. The Chief Executive
Officer & Executive Member, KIADB, Bengaluru and
another), dated 19.08.2015, to contend that procedure
prescribed in Section 34B of the KIAD Act is required to be
followed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent by referring to
the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated
24.01.2013 would submit that payment of
Rs.2,87,99,500/- has not been deposited on or before
22.07.2013. It is further submitted that in view of lease-
cum-sale deed not being executed, procedure prescribed
under Section 34B of the KIAD Act is not applicable.
8. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the
respondent.
9. The respondent has issued an intimation to the
petitioner regarding allotment of 2 acres of land in
Bengaluru I.T. Park, near Devanahalli Airport, subject to
certain deposits. Respondent has issued allotment letter
requiring the amount to be deposited by the petitioner.
The respondent has issued receipts acknowledging the
deposits. The respondent has further issued confirmatory
letter of allotment acknowledging receipt of 100%
payment towards land cost from the petitioner.
10. The petitioner was further issued possession
certificate on 18.01.2018. On 18.06.2018, the respondent
has forwarded draft lease deed to the petitioner. The
petitioner has represented and requested for extension of
time due to ill-health.
11. The respondent by order dated 17.03.2020 has
proceeded to cancel the allotment of land by rejecting the
request of the petitioner to execute lease-cum-sale
agreement for non-adherence of time schedule of terms
and conditions of allotment. As seen from the order of
cancellation or from the statement of objections filed by
the respondent the procedure provided under Section 34B
of the KIAD Act being followed is not reflecting. Section
34B of the KIAD Act clearly mandates issuance of notice
and opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the
allotment. On this ground alone, the impugned order of
cancellation of allotment is required to be quashed. The
above view is supported by the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.17059/2014 and W.P.No.19122/2014. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is partly-allowed.
(ii) Order of cancellation of allotment in respect of
Plot No.166 of (I.T. Sector) Hi-Tech, Defence
and Aerospace Park, Bengaluru at Annexure-M
is hereby quashed.
(iii) The respondent is directed to consider the
reply and representation at Annexures-L and N
respectively by due compliance of procedure
contemplated under Section 34B of the KIAD
Act.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mv
