Mantri Sierra Structures Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka By
2023 Latest Caselaw 7763 Kant

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.5216 OF 2015 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

MANTRI SIERRA STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. GIRISH GUPTA.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
    SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY,
       DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
       M.S. BUILDING,
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       14/2, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING,
       NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560002
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
                               2


3.    KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA
      REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
      KHANIJA BHAVANA,
      RACE COURSE ROAD,
      BANGALORE.

4.    BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD
      1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
      KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
      BENGALURU-560009,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

      (AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.2021)
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI.
V.   MANJUNATH    RAYAPPA,    ADDITIONAL  GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.B.PATIL,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 and 4;
SRI. D. SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ALL
PROCEEDINGS      IN   PURSUANCE      OF   THE    PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION     NO.CI:327SPQ:2005,     BANGALORE      DATED
06.02.2006    PRODUCED      AT   ANNEXURE-G      AND    FINAL
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI;743;SPQ;2007, BANGALORE,
DATED 17.12.2007 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE
EXTENT OF LANDS MENTIONED AT SL.NOS.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39 AND 40 OF THE SAID ANNEXURES WHICH ARE ALSO
COMPRISED OF THE GOVT. ORDER IDT 08 MOA 2008(13)
DATED 27.05.2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F RESERVING
THE LANDS BY THE SHLCC FOR THE PROJECT OF THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.
                                    3


     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 21.08.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                             ORDER

The petitioner has challenged all proceedings

pursuant to the preliminary notification bearing

No.CI:327:SPQ:2005, Bangalore, dated 06.02.2006

(Annexure - G) and final notification bearing No.CI-743-

SPQ-2007, Bangalore, dated 17.12.2007 in respect of the

lands reserved by the State High Level Clearance

Committee (henceforth referred to as 'SHLCC') for the

project of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought

for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to acquire and allot

the lands set out in the Government Order No.IDT-08-

MOA-2008(13) dated 27.05.2008 and for a direction to the

respondents to comply the order of the SHLCC dated

27.05.2008.

2. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that

the petitioner is a company incorporated under the

provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The State

Government had promulgated the Karnataka Industries

(Facilitation) Act, 2002 and had provided for approving

projects under a Single Window scheme by High Level

Committee and the respondent No.3 was a Nodal Agency.

The petitioner claims that at the 10th meeting of the

SHLCC, the project proposed by the petitioner to establish

"Integrated Township for IT/BT, IT Enabled Services and

Commercial Complexes with Residential Infrastructure" in

330 acres 29 guntas of land comprised in various survey

numbers of Ramagondanahalli, Amani Bellandur Khane,

Khane Khandeya, Sorehunse, Varthur and Hagadur villages

lying within Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, was

approved. The SHLCC resolved and recommended to the

respondent No.2 - KIADB to acquire and allot the aforesaid

330 acres 29 guntas of land on consent basis and the

petitioner was directed to obtain consent from the land

owners for a minimum 75% of the proposed area of the

project before commencement of the acquisition process

by KIADB. The petitioner contends that at the 13th

meeting of the SHLCC, the approval granted at the 10th

meeting was reviewed and confirmed. However, certain

additional conditions were incorporated. Later, the

Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of

Industries and Commerce and Member Secretary, SHLCC,

informed the petitioner that the proposal for establishment

of "Integrated Township for IT/BT, IT enabled services and

Commercial Complexes with Residential Infrastructure"

with an investment of Rs.6857 crores is approved by the

SHLCC and that a detailed Government Order would be

issued. Subsequent thereto, a Government Order bearing

No.ITD-08-MDA-2008(13), Bangalore, dated 27.05.2008

was issued according approval to the petitioner to establish

"Integrated Township for IT/BT, IT Enabled Services and

Commercial Complexes with Residential Infrastructure" in

330 acres 29 guntas of land comprised in various survey

numbers of Ramagondanahalli, Amani Bellandur Khane,

Khane Khandeya, Sorehunse, Varthur and Hagadur villages

lying within Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, subject to

certain conditions. The petitioner contends that it had

either entered into agreement for sale or had purchased

the land or obtained the consent of the land owners of the

land in excess of 200 acres and requested the KIADB to

complete the acquisition of balance lands by compulsory

acquisition as provided in the Government Order.

3. The petitioner contends that though it had

been communicating with the respondent No.2 about the

progress made in the implementation of the project and

later by a request dated 11.03.2013 to proceed with the

implementation of the project, the petitioner was informed

by the respondent No.2 that a portion of the lands in the

project area is already acquired by it for some other

purpose. The petitioner claims that after enquiry, it found

that the State Government by a notification dated

06.02.2006 proposed to acquire 35 acres 25 guntas in

Amani Bellandur Khane village followed by a final

notification dated 17.12.2007 for the purpose of

establishing a Sewage Treatment Plant by the respondent

No.4. The petitioner alleges that out of 35 acres 25 guntas

notified, 27 acres 1 gunta lay within the land allotted to

the petitioner. The petitioner contends that it was not

aware of the acquisition proceedings but it legitimately

expected that the respondent No.2 would comply the order

passed by the SHLCC dated 28.08.2007 and acquire the

lands in respect of which the petitioner could not obtain

consent from the land owners. The petitioner claimed that

it had carried out various activities for implementation of

the project and therefore, legitimately expected that the

State and its agencies would abide by their promise. It

further contends that certain other acquisition proceedings

were initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority,

which was challenged by the petitioner in

W.P.No.12439/2009 where this Court granted an order of

status quo resulting in delay in executing the project.

Later, the land was classified as Residential in the RMP

2015 for Bangalore with some areas being shown in the

Valley Zone. However, the allocation of the land for the

utilities in the Draft Master Plan was removed in the Final

Revised Master Plan 2015, which was approved by the

State Government in terms of the notification dated

29.06.2007. The petitioner contends that since it was able

to get consent from the owners of 80% of the total project

area, the State Government was estopped from going back

from its promise that it would acquire 20% of the land.

The petitioner contends that W.P.No.12439/2009 was

allowed on the ground of promissory estoppel and

legitimate expectation and this order attained finality. The

petitioner contends that after disposal of the aforesaid writ

petition, it approached the respondent No.2 on 11.03.2013

requesting it to consider acquiring the land to the extent of

20% of the total project area. It claimed that at a meeting

with the officers of the respondent No.2, it was informed

that the land which was reserved for the project of the

petitioner was acquired for some other public purposes,

the details of which were not provided. Consequently, the

petitioner submitted another representation dated

22.12.2014 requesting the respondent No.2 to initiate the

process of the acquisition. Nonetheless, the respondent

No.2 purportedly proceeded to acquire the lands without

application of mind and contrary to law. Therefore, the

petitioner is before this Court seeking for the reliefs

mentioned above.

4. The learned Senior counsel representing the

petitioner vehemently contended that once the SHLCC

headed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister with the Principal

Secretaries of various departments had approved the

project of the petitioner, all the authorities had to fall in

line to ensure that the approval of the project is given

effect to, which included acquisition of 20% of the land

from the owners. He submits that the conduct of the

respondent No.2 in acquiring portions of the lands within

the project area of the petitioner for the purpose of the

respondent No.4 is illegal and a clear violation of the

promise made to the petitioner. He submitted that the

conduct of the respondent No.2 has resulted in denigrating

the approval granted by the SHLCC. The learned Senior

counsel relied upon the following authorities:-

       1)    Commissioner,       Bangalore   Development
             Authority vs. State of Karnataka [2005
             SCC Online Kar 654]



       2)    State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd., and
             another [(2004) 6 SCC 465]
       3)    Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd., vs. S.P.
             Gururaja and others [(2003) 8 SCC 567]
       4)    The State of Jharkhand and others vs.
             Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and
             another.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed the statement of

objections and contended that the approvals granted by

the SHLCC are subject to the availability of land. It

contended that the acquisition for the installation of the

Sewage Treatment Plant by the respondent No.4 was

initiated well before the project of the petitioner. It

contended that the project of the petitioner was approved

subject to certain conditions namely, that the petitioner

had to obtain and submit the consent of land owners

before the respondent No.2 before commencement of

acquisition process. It contends that if the petitioner could

not obtain consent from small patches of land in the

project area, then the respondent No.2 would step in to

acquire the same for contiguity, compactness of project

site to facilitate implementation of the project. It

contended that mere approval of the project proposal by

the SHLCC did not ipso facto confer any right on the

petitioner to compel acquisition of the land that was

identified by the petitioner. It relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sooram Pratap Reddy vs.

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District [(2008) 9

SCC 552].

6. The respondent No.4 has also filed its

statement of objections more or less on the same lines as

mentioned by the respondent No.2.

7. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 and 4 while reiterating the contentions set out in the

statement of objections contended that the land acquired

for the benefit of respondent No.4 is suitable for setting up

of Sewage Treatment Plant as the sewage could be fed into

the plant by gravity. He contends that the petitioner has

not taken any steps to obtain consent of 75% of the land

owners whose land lay within the project site of the

petitioner. He referred to an affidavit filed by the petitioner

and stated that though the petitioner claimed that it had

spent Rs.416.65 crores towards the consent, not a scrap of

paper is produced before the Court. The learned Senior

counsel contended that the acquisition of 35 acres 25

guntas of land for the respondent No.4 is for the benefit of

the larger public. The Sewage Treatment Plant was

planned and proposed in view of the mandate by the

Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering

Organization. The learned Senior counsel contended that

the petitioner has not taken any steps of whatsoever

nature to obtain the consent of 75% of the land owners

from the year 2007 till the filing of this writ petition. He

therefore, contends that the writ petition is a clear abuse

of process of law and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4.

9. The proceedings of the 10th meeting of the

SHLCC dated 28.08.2007 shows that the committee had

resolved to recommend the respondent No.2 to acquire

and allot 330 acres 29 guntas of land in different survey

numbers of Ramagondanahalli, Amani Bellandur Khane,

Khane Khandeya, Sorehunse, Varthur and Hagadur villages

lying within Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, on

consent basis. The petitioner was required to obtain

consent from the land owners for a minimum 75% of the

proposed area of the project before commencement of

acquisition process by respondent No.2 - KIADB. At the

13th meeting of the SHLCC, the project of the petitioner

was reviewed and the decision of the SHLCC at the 10th

meeting was confirmed subject to the following additional

conditions:-

(a) The petitioner shall reserve 20% of the built-up area in the residential area of the project for economically weaker sections.

(b) The petitioner shall provide consent of 80% of the land owners to the KIADB prior to commencement of the acquisition.

10. The State Government approved the project of

the petitioner and issued a Government Order dated

27.05.2008, which was subject to condition inter alia

namely, that the petitioner should provide consent of 80%

of the land owners to the KIADB prior to commencement

of acquisition. The approval of the project was duly

notified in the State Gazette. In the meanwhile, the

respondent No.1 had notified 35 acres 25 guntas of land in

Amani Bellandur Khane for the purpose of the respondent

No.4 in terms of a preliminary notification dated

06.02.2006 followed by a final notification dated

17.12.2007. From the year 2008 when the project of the

petitioner was approved, till the filing of this petition, no

steps are taken by the petitioner to obtain consent of 80%

of the land owners. However, in order to keep the issue

burning, the petitioner submitted representations dated

11.03.2013 and 22.12.2014 to the respondent No.2

requesting it to expedite the acquisition of the land. Since

it is stated by the learned Senior counsel for the

respondent Nos.2 and 4 that the consent of 80% of the

land owners is not placed before it, the petitioner had

violated the fundamental conditions imposed by the State

Government for approval of the project of the petitioner.

Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior

counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4, mere approval of

the project of the petitioner did not confer any right unless

the petitioner took proper and sufficient steps to comply

with the conditions attached to the order of approval by

the SHLCC and the respondent No.1.

11. In view of the above, the petitioner is not

entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

12. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR