Karnataka High Court
M/S Bathla Aluminium Pvt.Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2025
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.26031 OF 2017 (LB - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.4460 OF 2017 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.2853 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.2855 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.2856 OF 2019 (LB - TAX),
WRIT PETITION NO.2858 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.2860 OF 2019 (LB - TAX),
WRIT PETITION NO.2861 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.2863 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.2864 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.2865 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.3457 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.3458 OF 2019 (LB - BMP),
WRIT PETITION NO.4517 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.4518 OF 2019 (LB - TAX),
WRIT PETITION NO.8009 OF 2019 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.11777 OF 2019 (LB - TAX),
WRIT PETITION NO.22521 OF 2021 (LB - TAX),
WRIT PETITION NO.29467 OF 2023 (LB - TAX),
WRIT PETITION NO.18605 OF 2024 (LB - TAX),
WRIT PETITION NO.20840 OF 2024 (LB - RES),
WRIT PETITION NO.29522 OF 2024 (GM - KIADB) &
WRIT PETITION NO.32617 OF 2024 (LB - TAX)
2
IN W.P.NO.26031/2017
BETWEEN
M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES
PRIVATE LIMITED
PLOT NO.242, OFF SOMPURA
1ST STAGE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
COMPRISED IN SY.NOS. (PARTS)
OF 132 AND 142, NIDVANDA VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY SRI. S. KANTAPPA
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
3
COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED NIL IN NO. NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IMPUGNED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.4460/2017
BETWEEN
BIG BAGS BANGALORE PVT. LTD.
PLOT NO.240, SOMPURA INDL. AREA,
1ST STAGE, DOBASPET,
NIDUVANDA VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDLU-562 132,
BENGALURU RURAL DIST.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
MR. RITESH R NAYAK
S/O P.R. NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
4
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
#14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.5.2016 IN NO. NIL ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.2853/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. NARMADA PIPE INDUSTRY
PLOT NO.253, SOMPURA I STAGE
INDUSTRIAL AREA, NIDAVANDA VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT
5
REPRESENTED BY:- ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. G.D. MANJUNATH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 09.01.2019 PRODUCED AT
6
ANENXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2855/2019
BETWEEN
B.B.R (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
318, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR,
15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-ACCOUNTS
D. JAYASHANKAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
7
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 23.06.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANENXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2856/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. S.G. AGRO PVT. LTD.
NO.9 AND 10, KIADB,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DOBASPET,
BANGALORE-562 111,
REPRESENTED BY:-
ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. S.G. RAO.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
8
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 26.12.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
VIDE NO.133-2018-19, AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2858/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. HIND HIGH VACUUM PVT. LTD.
NO.17, PHASE-1,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BANGALORE-560 058,
REPRESENTED BY:- ITS HR HEAD,
9
SRI. P. B. RAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 14.11.2018 WHICH WAS RECEIVED
BY THE PETITIONER ON 16.11.2018 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-A
10
(IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL,
IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2860/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. I. P. A PRIVATE LIMITED
472/B2, 12TH CROSS, IV PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560 058
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. KURIAN V ABRAHAM
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
11
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.84/2018-19 DATED 23.06.2018
WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITINER ON 13.11.2018
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE
IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2861/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. M.I.M. COMPONENTS
(BANGALORE) PVT. LTD.
NO.395 & 396, SUB-LAYOUT,
SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NELAMANGALA TQ,
BANGALORE-562 132
REPRESENTED BY:-
ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. BHARAT BANDHARI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
12
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 03.10.2018 WHICH WAS RECEIVED
BY THE PETITIONER ON 03.11.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
(IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL,
IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2863/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. POWER TECH ENTERPRISES
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
PLOT NO.210, K.I.A.D.B.,
13
SOMAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA
PHASE, 1 NEAR DABASPET,
NELAMANGALA TALUQ, BANGALORE-562 111
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER BALACHANDRAN
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
14
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 05.12.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A [IMPUGNED] PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2864/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. CHIRANTANAEQUIPACK (P) LTD
NO.212, 1ST STAGE,
SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NIDAVANDA VILLAE,
THYAMAGONDLU
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL-562 132
REPRESENTED BY:-
ITS DIRECTOR SRI. GIRISH KAMATH
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
15
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 05.12.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) GRA.PAN.TAGADE BILL NO.83/18-19
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND
NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.2865/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. V.S. PLASTICS
NO.255, SOMAPURA,INDUSTRIAL AREA,
1ST STAGE, NIDAVANDA VILLAGE,
DOBASPET, NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE RURAL
REPRESENTED BY:
ITS PARTNER, SRI. LALITH KUMAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
16
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 16.04.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.3457/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. SUPERCOAT PAINTS PVT. LTD.
NO.04, SOMPURA 1ST STAGE,
SOMAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DOBASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL-562 111
17
REPRESENTED BY:-
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. D. SHIVRAM
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 20.09.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
18
IN W.P.NO.3458/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. GCL PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.67 A & B,
SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
1ST STAGE, DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL-562 111
REPRESENTED BY:- ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER
(ACCOUNTS & FINANCE)
SRI. M. NAGARAJ
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
19
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 03.10.2018 WHICH WAS RECEIVED
ON 12.11.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED)
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND
NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.4517/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. LEONID CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.
NO.62/2, 1ST STAGE,
YESHWANTHPUR, IND SUB,
ASHOKPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 022.
REPRESENTED BY:-
ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. NAVEEN GALADA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
20
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CEO & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 12.04.2017 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.4518/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. VPL CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.
NO.27, BEHIND "THE CLUB",
NAYANADAHALLI,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 039.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. PATIL SASIDHAR GOWD
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
21
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CEO & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 26.12.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANENXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
22
IN W.P.NO.8009/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. BATHLA ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD.
NO.381. 1ST STAGE, KIADB,
SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DOBASPET NELAMANAGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY:
ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. GAURAV BATHLA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CEO & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
23
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 21.01.2019 BEARING NO.138-2018-
19 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.11777/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. LAXMI INDUSTRIES
NO. 634, 1ST FLOOR,
2ND PHASE, 7TH BLOCK,
100 FEET RING ROAD,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
REPRESENTED BY:
ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. BASANT JALAN
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
24
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CEO & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 05.12.2018 BEARING
NO.SOM.GRA.PAN.TAGADE BILL 123-2018-19 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINBLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.22521/2021
BETWEEN
M/S S.G. AGRO PVT. LTD.
NO. 9 AND 10, KIADB,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DOBASPET,
25
BANGALORE-562 111
REPRESENTED BY:-
ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. S.G. RAO
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
26
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 18.11.2021 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.29467/2023
BETWEEN
M/S S.G. AGRO PVT. LTD.
(REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
NO. 9 AND 10, KIADB,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DOBASPET, BANGALORE-562 111
REPRESENTED BY:- ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. S.G. RAO
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
27
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT DATED 12.12.2023 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS
ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.18605/2024
BETWEEN
MJN INDUSTRIES
NO.115, 2ND MAIN, NGEF LAYOUT,
MALLATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 056,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
AMMISETTI SUVARCHALA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
28
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., 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 QUASH THE
DEMAND WARRANT BEARING
NO.1503007020/1503007020007/2024-2025/00060 DATED
04.06.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.20840/2024
BETWEEN
M/S. CEETA INDUSTRIES LTD.
(REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
HAVING INDUSTRIES AT NO.34-38,
29
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SATHYAMANAGALA, TUMKUR-572 104
(REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING OFFICE NEAR TOWN-HALL,
BHAGWAN MAHAVEER ROAD,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
GANDHINAGAR, TUMKUR-572 102.
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
30
DEMAND LETTER BEARING NO.TUMPA/K.S/CR-01/2024-25
DATED 20.05.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED)
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND
NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.29522/2024
BETWEEN
M/S. GEM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
(REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
HAVING OFFICE AT INDUSTRY HOUSE,
45, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
SRI. SANJAY MALPANI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
31
ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING OFFICE NEAR TOWN-HALL,
BHAGWAN MAHAVEER ROAD,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
GANDHINAGAR, TUMKUR-572 102.
REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND LETTERS BEARING
NO.K.I.A.D.B/DO/TMK/5183/1595/2024-25 DATED 31.07.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
(IMPUGNED) AND DEMAND LETTER BEARING NO.
TUMAPA/KAMSHA/TENO/CR/01/2014-1501/2014-15 DATED
10.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B (IMPUGNED) AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
IN W.P.NO.32617/2024
BETWEEN
M/S. MEYER ORGANICS PVT. LTD.
(REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
HAVING INDUSTRIES AT NO.371,
SOMPURA, 1ST STAGE,
NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-562 111.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
32
SRI. SUDHAKAR KANDANURU)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 111.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND LETTER BEARING
NO.SAN.SO.GRA.PAN.TERIGE.8/2024-25 DATED 24.09.2024
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) PASSED BY THE 3RD
33
RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR AND NOT SUSTAINABLE
IN LAW.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.A.V. ORDER
These batch of writ petitions are directed against the
demand notices issued by the respondent-Gram Panchayat
levying property tax on the industrial property of the
petitioners located within the notified industrial area
established and maintained by the respondent-Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
2. The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions
have called in question the demand notices issued by
respondent - the Gram Panchayat contending that the said
notices are without jurisdiction. They rely on the provisions
of Section 37 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (for short, "the KIAD Act") read
with Section 47, which vests exclusive authority in the
34
KIADB for planning, development, and maintenance of
industrial areas. The petitioners specifically assert that
Section 37 stipulates that the provisions of the Karnataka
Municipalities Act or the Panchayat Raj Act can apply to an
industrial area only upon its withdrawal from the purview of
the KIADB by way of an express notification issued by the
State Government. It is submitted that, in the present
batch of petitions, no such notification has been issued.
The petitioners also place reliance on a letter issued by the
Chief Executive Officer of respondent - KIADB addressed
to the State Government, wherein it is stated that the
power to collect property tax on land and buildings and levy
license fees within KIADB industrial areas exclusively vests
with respondent-KIADB. On that basis, the petitioners
submit that the Gram Panchayat lacks the jurisdiction to
issue the impugned demand notices.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
have reiterated the above contentions, emphasizing that
35
the petitioners' industrial establishments are situated within
notified industrial areas. It is submitted that, in the
absence of any notification issued under Section 37 of the
KIAD Act withdrawing these areas from the jurisdiction of
KIADB, respondent - Gram Panchayat has no authority to
impose property tax. They further rely on Schedule-IV
introduced by way of amendment under Act No.44 of 2015
to the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,
1993, which stipulates that the Gram Panchayat shall have
the power to levy property tax only if jurisdiction is
conferred by a specific notification issued by the State
Government. In the absence of such a notification, the
petitioners contend that respondent - Gram Panchayat has
no jurisdiction to levy the impugned taxes.
4. Respondent - KIADB has filed statement of
objections affirming the stand taken by the petitioners. It
is categorically asserted that the industrial establishments
in question fall within the limits of notified industrial areas
36
and that no notification has been issued by the State
Government under Section 37 withdrawing the said area
from the jurisdiction of KIADB.
5. Respondent - Gram Panchayat has filed a
detailed statement of objections asserting that it is the local
body providing basic civic amenities and infrastructure to
the concerned industrial plots. In that context, respondent
- Gram panchayat claims that it is authorized under
Schedule-IV to the Panchayat Raj Act to levy property tax
on industrial establishments. It is therefore contended that
the impugned demand notices are lawful and do not
warrant interference by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent - Gram
Panchayat has raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the
petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal
under Section 201 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Placing
37
reliance on Rule 37 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj (Taxes, Rates and Fees of Grama
Panchayats) Rules, 2021, it is argued that the appellate
authority is the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla
Panchayat, and the petitioners ought to be relegated to
avail such remedy. The counsel submits that under the said
Rule, the appeal requires deposit of 50% of the tax amount
demanded.
7. In support of this contention, respondent - Gram
Panchayat has placed reliance on the judgment of a
coordinate Bench in M/s. Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs.
The Panchayat Development Officer & Another1, as
well as the decision rendered in M/s. Satrac Engg. Pvt.
Ltd. vs. The Secretary/Panchayat Development
Officer & Another2, where it was held that, under Section
199 read with Schedule-IV of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj
Act, 1993, every Gram Panchayat is authorized to levy
1
W.P.No.13613 of 2022 Dtd: 03.01.2023
2
W.P.No.52181 of 2013 Dtd: 22.09.2022
38
property tax. It is further submitted that the amendment
to Schedule-IV, brought in by Act No.44 of 2015 and made
effective from 20.05.2016, has been upheld and the levy of
property tax has been held to be valid prospectively. The
counsel also refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Bangalore International Airport Area Planning
Authority vs. Birla Super Bulk Terminal (Now a unit of
Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.) and others3 and two
Government Circulars dated 23.09.2019 and 16.07.2024 in
support of his argument.
8. In view of the rival contentions, the following
points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether respondent - Gram Panchayat has
jurisdiction to levy property tax in respect of
properties situated within industrial areas notified
under the KIAD Act, in the absence of a notification
under Section 37 withdrawing the said area?
3
Civil Appeal No.9684 of 2011
39
(ii) Whether the impugned demand notices
issued by respondent - Gram Panchayat are without
authority of law and liable to be quashed?
(iii) Whether the objection raised by respondent
- Gram panchayat that the writ petitions are not
maintainable in view of the alternate remedy of appeal
under Section 201 of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rule
37 of the Taxation Rules can be sustained?
Findings on Point Nos.1 and 2:
9. Before addressing the core issue concerning the
jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat to levy property tax, this
Court considers it appropriate to first refer to the relevant
statutory provisions under the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966, namely Sections 23, 37, and 47.
For ease of reference and to facilitate a proper
understanding of the statutory scheme, the said provisions
are extracted below:
"23. Expenditure from funds.- (1) The Board
shall have the authority to spend such sums as it
40
thinks fit for the purposes authorised under this Act
from out of the Board's fund.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
power conferred by sub-section (1), the Board may
contribute such sums as it thinks fit towards
expenditure incurred or to be incurred by any local
authority or statutory public undertaking in the
performance, in relation to any of its industrial estates
or industrial areas, of any of the statutory functions of
such authority or undertaking, including expenditure
incurred in the acquisition of land.
37. Withdrawal of area or estate or part
thereof.- Where the State Government is satisfied
that in respect of any industrial area or any part
thereof, the purpose for which the Board was
established under this Act has been substantially
achieved so as to render the continued existence of
such area of part thereof under the Board
unnecessary, the State Government may, by
notification, declare that such industrial area, or part
thereof, has been removed from the jurisdiction of the
Board. The State Government may also make such
other incidental arrangements for the administration
of such area or part thereof as the circumstances
necessitate.
41
47. Effect of provisions inconsistent with
other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law."
10. This Court also deems it fit to cull out Schedule-
IV to the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act as amended by Act
No.44 of 2015 which reads as under:
"Schedule -IV
(See Section 199)
Tax on Property Tax on Buildings
A Tax on Buildings Rate per annum
(i) Residential buildings; Not less than 0.05% but not
more than 1.10% on Capital
Value of the Property.
(ii) Commercial buildings; Not less than 0.2% but not more
than 0.5% on Capital Value of
the Property.
(iii) Industries, factories, IT
Parks, Hardware Park, Textile
Park, Bio-Tech Park, Power
plants Hydro, Thermal, Solar
Plants Wind Mills & Airport
including connected area etc.
(in the KIADB Industrial area,
SEZ and other Industrial area
or zones notified by the
Government from time to
time)."
42
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' industrial
establishments are situated within an industrial area that
has been duly notified under the KIAD Act. The land in
question was acquired and developed by the respondent -
KIADB by invoking powers under Section 6(1) of the KIAD
Act, and thereafter allotted to the petitioners for
establishing industrial units. It is also an admitted fact that
the area where the petitioners' properties are located has
not been withdrawn or de-notified by the State Government
under Section 37 of the KIAD Act. Therefore, the industrial
area continues to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
KIADB.
12. Section 23 of the KIAD Act, which has been
extracted hereinabove, authorizes the Board (KIADB) to
incur expenditure for purposes enumerated under the Act.
More importantly, sub-section (2) of Section 23 clarifies
that the Board may, at its discretion, contribute towards the
expenditure incurred by any local authority in discharging
43
its statutory obligations in relation to any industrial area.
This implies that the Gram Panchayat or any other local
body has no automatic right to impose or recover taxes
from units within industrial areas unless specifically
authorized by the KIADB or through statutory mechanism.
Section 37 of the Act provides the legal basis for
transferring jurisdiction from KIADB to other authorities. It
explicitly states that the State Government may, upon
being satisfied that the purposes for which the industrial
area was constituted have been substantially fulfilled,
withdraw such area or part thereof from the jurisdiction of
the Board through a formal notification. Until such
notification is issued, the jurisdiction of KIADB remains
intact and exclusive. Further, Section 47 of the Act gives
overriding effect to the provisions of the KIAD Act over any
other law that is inconsistent with its provisions. The
statutory scheme therefore leaves no room for implied or
44
incidental exercise of jurisdiction by any local authority
including Gram Panchayats.
13. The amended Schedule-IV to the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, introduced by Act No.44 of 2015,
recognizes the authority of Gram Panchayats to levy
property tax, including on buildings situated within
industrial areas such as KIADB industrial estates. However,
a critical reading of the Schedule shows that such power is
not absolute or automatic. The language used in the
Schedule is clear: the power to impose tax on properties
within KIADB or other notified industrial areas is subject to
Government notification. The phrase "subject to
notification" is a legislative condition precedent and must be
interpreted harmoniously with the provisions of the KIAD
Act, particularly Section 37. In the absence of a statutory
notification by the State Government withdrawing such area
from KIADB and conferring jurisdiction upon the Gram
Panchayat, the latter cannot unilaterally impose property
45
tax. Any such exercise would be ultra vires and without
authority of law.
14. Respondent No.1/State vide Circular dated
16.07.2024 has issued directives informing all Panchayats,
Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and other local bodies
that they do not possess power to sanction development
plans, layout plans, building plans, commencement
certificates, occupancy certificates, etc. in areas designated
as industrial areas, estates of SUCs approved by the KIADB.
Additionally, KSSIDC shall be the building plan approval
authority for the industrial estates developed by KSSIDC.
The relevant extract of the Circular is extracted which reads
as under:
"ಆದುದ ಂದ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೈ ಾ ಾ ಪ ೇ ಾ ವೃ
ಮಂಡ ಯು ಅ ವೃ ಪ ದ ಕಟ ಡ !"ಾ ಣ ಅನುಮ% /
ಪರ'ಾನ(, ಅ ವೃ )ೕಜ ೆ, +ೇಔ- )ೕಜ ೆ, .ಾ ರಂಭ
ಪ "ಾಣ ಪತ , 1ಾ23ೕನ ಪ "ಾಣ ಪತ , ಇ5ಾ6 ಗಳನು9 ಮತು:
ೈ ಾ ಾ ಪ ೇಶಗಳ<, ಎ1ೆ ೕ-ಗಳ< ಮತು: ಏಕಘಟಕ ಸಂBೕಣ ಗಳ
46
ಅನುಮ%ಗಳನು9 !ೕಡುವ ಅ3 ಾರವನು9 KIADB Cೊಂ ೆ ಮತು:
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Eಾಜ6 ಸಣF ೈ ಾ ೆಗಳ ಅ ವೃ !ಗಮವG (KSSIDC)
ಅ ವೃ ಪ ದ ೈ ಾ ಾ ಎ1ೆ ೕ-ಗ ೆ ಕಟ ಡ !"ಾ ಣ
ಅನುಮ% / ಪರ'ಾನ( ಅನುHೕದ ೆ .ಾ 3 ಾರ'ಾ( KSSIDC
Iಾ(ರುವGದ ಂದ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾ ಮ ಸ2EಾJ ಮತು: ಪಂKಾಯL
EಾJ ಅ3!ಯಮ, 1993 ರನ2ಯ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೈ ಾ ಾ ಪ ೇಶ
ಅ ವೃ ಮಂಡ ಯು (KIADB) ಮತು: ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Eಾಜ6 ಸಣF
ೈ ಾ ೆಗಳ ಅ ವೃ !ಗಮವG (KSSIDC) ಅ ವೃ ಪ ದ
ೈ ಾ ಾ ಪ ೇಶಗಳ</ಎ1ೆ ೕ-ಗಳ< ಮತು: ಏಕಘಟಕ
ಸಂBೕಣ ಗಳMN ಕಟ ಡ !"ಾ ಣ ಅನುಮ%/ಪರ'ಾನ(, !ೕಡಲು
ಾ ಮ ಪಂKಾP%ಯು ಸQಮ.ಾ 3 ಾರ'ಾ(ರುವG ಲN'ೆಂದು ಎ+ಾN
R+ಾN ಪಂKಾಯ%ಯ ಮುಖ6 ಾಯ !'ಾ ಹಕ ಅ3 ಾ ಗಳ<,
5ಾಲೂNಕು ಪಂKಾಯ% ಾಯ !'ಾ ಹಕ ಅ3 ಾ ಗಳ< ಮತು: ಾ ಮ
ಪಂKಾಯ%ಗಳ ಪಂKಾಯ% ಅ ವೃ ಅ3 ಾ ಗ ೆ ಸೂU ೆ"
15. In view of the admitted position that no
notification has been issued under Section 37 of the KIAD
Act withdrawing the subject industrial area from the
jurisdiction of KIADB, the jurisdiction of respondent - Gram
Panchayat to levy property tax simply does not arise. The
impugned demand notices issued by respondent No.2,
therefore, lack statutory foundation and are liable to be
47
declared ultra vires and void. The levy of tax in absence of
a specific enabling provision or notification amounts to
colorable exercise of power. The KIAD Act, being a special
legislation enacted for the planned development and
administration of industrial areas, will override general laws
such as the Panchayat Raj Act in the event of conflict. Even
if it is assumed arguendo that the Panchayat Raj Act
purports to extend to such areas, the special provisions
under the KIAD Act, particularly Section 47, will prevail due
to the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant.
Hence, unless and until the industrial area is formally de-
notified, no other local authority, including respondent -
Gram Panchayat, can assume fiscal jurisdiction over the
said area.
16. The reliance placed by respondent - Gram
panchayat on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in
support of the legality of the demand notices is misplaced.
The judgments relied upon do not consider or examine the
48
interplay between Sections 23, 37, and 47 of the KIAD Act.
Additionally, those judgments have not analysed the legal
implication of the expression "subject to notification" as
found in Schedule-IV of the Panchayat Raj Act. This Court
finds that the issue of jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat to
levy tax within notified industrial areas under the KIAD Act
was not placed before the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, the
observations made in the said judgments cannot be treated
as binding precedents in the present context. Since the
validity of the very exercise of jurisdiction by the Gram
Panchayat is under challenge based on the specific
statutory framework of the KIAD Act, the issue is
distinguishable and requires independent adjudication.
17. Article 265 of the Constitution of India mandates
that "no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority
of law." This constitutional safeguard ensures that no
public authority can exercise taxing powers unless such
power is derived from a valid statutory provision. In the
49
present case, respondent - Gram Panchayat has failed to
establish the existence of any such authority or notification
permitting it to levy property tax in KIADB industrial areas.
18. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
Gram Panchayat has placed reliance on several documents
in an attempt to substantiate the authority of the Gram
Panchayat to levy taxes, this Court finds justification to be
legally untenable. In particular, reliance is placed on a
lease-cum-sale agreement executed by the respondent-
KIADB, which allegedly contains a recital permitting local
authorities to collect taxes. However, this Court is of the
considered view that such a recital, by itself, cannot be
construed as sufficient compliance with the mandatory
provisions of Section 37 of the KIAD Act. Statutory power
to levy taxes must necessarily flow from an express
legislative provision or a valid statutory delegation, and
cannot be inferred from a contractual clause or incidental
50
recital in a private arrangement such as a lease-cum-sale
agreement.
19. Furthermore, the reliance placed on earlier
circulars by the counsel for the Gram Panchayat also does
not assist their case. The State Government, by its most
recent circular dated 16.07.2024, has categorically clarified
the legal position. The circular unequivocally states that
the KIADB alone is the competent authority for sanctioning
development plans, layout plans, and building plans within
designated industrial areas or estates. It further mandates
that all local bodies, including Gram Panchayats,
Municipalities, and Corporations, shall refrain from
exercising jurisdiction over such industrial areas in matters
of planning approval and taxation. Thus, any reliance on
previous circulars stands displaced by this authoritative
clarification issued by the State.
51
20. Upon careful examination of the additional
documents produced by the learned counsel for the Gram
Panchayat, this Court is of the clear view that none of the
materials placed on record confer any statutory authority
on the Panchayat to levy or collect taxes in respect of
industrial establishments located within areas notified and
developed by the KIADB under the provisions of the KIAD
Act. Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any
administrative communication cannot vest such power in
the Gram Panchayat in the absence of express delegation or
statutory backing.
21. In this backdrop, any reliance on previous
circulars is misplaced and unsustainable in law.
Consequently, the power to regulate and approve
development activities, including the right to levy and
collect tax within such industrial estates, vests exclusively
with the KIADB. The Gram Panchayat cannot usurp such
authority in the absence of a specific statutory conferment.
52
22. In light of the binding circular dated 16.07.2024
issued by the State Government, which places the
responsibility for planning and development approval solely
with the KIADB, the claim of the Panchayat to continue
exercising fiscal powers over such areas is clearly
misconceived and without legal foundation.
23. The impugned demand notices, therefore, do not
pass the test of legality and are clearly unsustainable in
law. In the absence of jurisdiction vested by a valid
notification under Section 37 of the KIAD Act, the levy
amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is liable to be
set aside. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 framed for
consideration are answered in
the negative and affirmative, respectively.
Finding on Point No.3:
24. As regards the objection raised by respondent -
Gram panchayat regarding availability of alternate remedy
53
under Section 201 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, this
Court has considered the decision of the Coordinate Bench
in M/s. Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd (supra). In the said
case, the Court examined the maintainability of a writ
petition where a statutory appeal was available. However,
the present case stands on a different footing. This Court
has, while answering point Nos.1 and 2, categorically held
that respondent - Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to
impose property tax on properties situated within a notified
industrial area governed by the KIAD Act, absent a
notification under Section 37. Where the very assumption
of jurisdiction is challenged as being ultra vires and
constitutionally invalid, the existence of an appellate
remedy does not act as a bar to invoking writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the tax
demand is wholly without authority of law, relegating the
petitioners to an appellate forum would be both futile and
unjustified.
54
25. Furthermore, the impugned demand notices,
being premised solely on the amended Schedule-IV of the
Panchayat Raj Act, also cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The
phrase "subject to notification" in Schedule-IV makes it
abundantly clear that the power to levy tax in KIADB
industrial areas is not conferred upon the Gram Panchayat
unless expressly authorized by the Government through a
formal notification. In the absence of such notification, the
Gram Panchayat lacks initial jurisdiction to pass any
assessment order. Consequently, the appellate authority
contemplated under Section 201 of the Act would also be
incompetent to adjudicate on questions involving
interpretation and precedence of provisions under the KIAD
Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to direct the
petitioners to exhaust the remedy of appeal. The statutory
challenge in this case involves the vires and jurisdictional
competence of the assessing authority itself. Accordingly,
point No.3 is answered in the negative.
55
26. In the findings recorded supra, this Court is of
the view that the jurisdiction of a statutory authority to levy
tax must be firmly rooted in express statutory sanction, and
any imposition of tax without such authority is
unconstitutional. It is a settled principle of law that no tax
can be levied or collected except by authority of law, as
mandated under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Birla Cotton,
Spinning and Weaving Mills4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphatically held that "a tax cannot be imposed by
inference or analogy or by presuming any intention. It
must be imposed in accordance with the express language
of the statute." Similarly, in India Cement Ltd. v. State
of Tamil Nadu5, the Court reiterated that the power to tax
is a legislative function and must be exercised strictly within
the confines of the enabling statute. Any deviation from
this principle renders the levy unconstitutional and ultra
4
AIR 1968 SC 1232
5
(1990) 1 SCC 12
56
vires. Thus, unless the statute explicitly confers the power
to levy and collect tax, any such action by a statutory body,
including local authorities, is liable to be struck down as
being without jurisdiction.
27. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petitions are allowed;
(ii) The impugned demand notices issued
by the respondent - Gram Panchayat are hereby
quashed and set aside.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
