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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
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
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
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
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
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
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
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
NC: 2025:KHC:47599-DB
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
