[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Patel Jetalal Ramaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2026
-1-
WA No. 2790 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 ®
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PATEL JETALAL RAMAJI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. SHANTA BEN J. PATEL
W/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1ST FLOOR,
MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHURU HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 032.
1(b) SRI PRAKASH J. PATEL
S/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
signed by
VASANTHA R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1ST FLOOR,
KUMARY B MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHURU HOBLI,
K
Location:
BANGALORE-560032.
HIGH
COURT OF 1(c) SRI KISHORE J. PATEL
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1ST FLOOR,
MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHURU HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560032.
1(d) SRI DINESH J. PATEL
S/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1ST FLOOR,
-2-
WA No. 2790 of 2013
MUNNEKOLALA,
VARTHURU HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560032.
(Appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) are
brought on record
v/o dated 25.11.2025)
2. SRI PATEL HIRALAL MURJI VARANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O MURJI VARANI
RESIDING AT BANASAWADI ROAD
PAPAIAH REDDY LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560043
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. AADHYA CHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, II FLOOR,
RASTROTHAN PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
3. ROYAL FRAGRANCES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
PRESENTLY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE E-13/29
HARSHA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR
MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110 001
-3-
WA No. 2790 of 2013
BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.174, RAKSHITHA COMPLEX
9TH CROSS, INIDRANAGAR I STAGE
BANGALORE-38
AND HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR ASHOKA K R
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SHRI K T RAMASWAMY
RESIDING AT NO.495/65
4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
A BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI HAREESH NARASAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.03.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.17211/2009 AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 02.12.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WA No. 2790 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed
impugning the judgment and award dated 06.03.2013
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17211/2009
(LA-KIADB) filed by the 3rd respondent herein.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The 3rd respondent herein, who was the petitioner in
the writ Court i.e., the Royal Fragrances Private Limited,
the Company said to have been incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Head
Office at No.E-13/29, "Harsha Bhawan, Ground Floor,
Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001,
challenged the decision of the Government dated
18.03.2009 and a direction issued to the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'the
KIADB') dated 23.05.2009 to denotify the land in
Sy.No.10/2 measuring 23 guntas, Sy.No.10/3 measuring
13 guntas, totally measuring 36 guntas.
4. The other prayers made by the writ petitioner are
extracted hereunder :-
"(ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or
Direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus
restraining the Respondents from denotifying any
land covered under Survey Nos. 10/1 10/2 10/3
10/11, 10/12, 10/14, 10/15, 11/1, 11/2P, 11/3P,
54/1 to 54/6 54/7P & 54/8 of Devarabisanahalli, and
Survey No 29/1, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2 and 32 of
Kariyammana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, more particularly land
Bearing Sy No 10/2 and 10/3, which have been
acquired pursuant to final notification produced at
Annexure-W.
(iii) Issue a direction to the Respondents more
particularly the 2nd Respondent not to in any
manner deal with or allot the lands covered under
Survey Nos. 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/11, 10/12P ,,,
10/14, 10/15, 11/1, 11/2P, 11/3P, 54/1 to 54/6
54/7P & 54/8 of Devarabisanahalli, and Survey No
29/1 29/2 30/1, 30/2, and 32 of Kariyammana
Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, which have been notified, for the purpose of
exclusive use by the Petitioner to set up their
project as per Annexure W.
(iv) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or
direction in the nature of a writ of Mandamus
directing Respondents to continue and complete the
acquisition proceedings in respect of lands covered
under Survey Nos. 10/1, 10/2, 10/3 10/11, 10/12P,
10/14, 10/15, 11/1, 11/2P, 11/3P, 54/1 to 54/6,
54/7P & 54/8 of Devarabisanahalli, and Survey No
29/1, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, and 32 of Kariyammana
Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, pursuant to the Gazette notification bearing
No. CI:255:SPQ:2001 dated 10.12.2001 issued by
1st Respondent vide Annexure-T.
(v) Pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any
other writ of order or direction in the nature of a
writ of Mandamus directing 1st and 2nd Respondents
to handover possession of lands which are in the
custody of the 2nd Respondent pursuant to the
Gazette notification bearing No.
CI:255:SPQ:2001Dated 23.02.2004 issued by 1st
Respondent vide Annexure-W."
5. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment
dated 06.03.2013 has allowed the writ petition without
taking note of the submissions and no discussion finds
place in respect of the respective case of the petitioner
and the respondents in the impugned judgment.
6. This is a peculiar case of gross misuse of the power
of eminent domain of the State in conferring the most
valuable natural resource i.e., the land in favour of
persons for consideration other than public interest, legally
valid, justified and based on constitutional morality. The
three companies viz., M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited, M/s.,
Supreme Build-cap Private Limited and M/s. Royal
Fragrances Private Limited i.e, respondent No.3, have
managed to get allotment of about 154 acres of very
precious and valuable lands in Bengaluru city. All the three
concerns belong to the same set of Directors represented
by Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripati and Mr. Santhosh Garg.
These three concerns have been sanctioned the following
lands:
(a) 100 acres at Devarabisanahalli from KIADB in
85th High Level Committee meeting held on
14.08.2001,
(b) 35 acres at Devarabisanahalli in 86th High level
Committee meeting held on 22.10.2001; and
(c) 12 acres in Devarabisanahalli and Kariyammana
Agrahara on 212th Meeting of the Committee held on
18.09.2001.
7. These Companies have the common Directors and
Management and the Offices are allotted such a large
extent of lands for alleged purposes of integrated
infrastructural facilities for IT, Hospitality, Education,
Housing and for integrated project for IT park with
multiplex theatres along with Super Deluxe Hotels,
Shopping Complex and third for IT park. An extent of 150
acres of lands have been allotted in favour of private
Companies owned and controlled by a few individuals
belonging to same family.
8. The question is whether the State can exercise its
eminent domain to favour the private entities/individuals
and whether such blatant favouritism for reasons unknown
in law can be said to be in public interest.
9. Before dealing further with the question of eminent
domain of the State in the Land acquisition proceedings, it
would be apt to take note of the relevant facts.
10. The State Government vide Government Orders
dated 16.10.1990, 18.05.1991 and 07.04.1997 constituted
the State Level Single Window Agency (for brevity 'the
SLSWA') under the Department of Commerce and
Industry to consider and to provide assistance to industrial
projects in their implementation.
11. The appellant No.1 had purchased 18 guntas of land
in Survey No.10/2. The appellant No.2 had purchased 5
guntas in Survey No.10/2 and 13 guntas in Survey No.
10/3 on 31.01.2000 in Devarabisanahalli Village, Varthur
Hobli, Bengaluru.
12. The Karnataka Udyogmitra, a body under the
Department of Commerce and Industries was created by
the said Notification dated 06.08.2001, and it was
designated as the nodal agency to address all grievances
and obtain approvals for the industries.
13. The Royal Fragrances Private Limited i.e.,
respondent No. 3 herein, who was the petitioner in the
writ petition made an application, whose main object is
manufacture and production of gutka, a cancer causing
substance, as per the memorandum of association. An
application made to the SLSWA was for seeking approval
for its project to set up a software park, public IT park in
- 10 -
Kariyammanna Agrahara and Devarabisanahali Villages,
Bengaluru South.
14. The said Royal Fragrance Private Limited did not
even have an iota of experience in IT industry or related
activity and they filed the application intending to promote
IT and Software etc.
15. The application was placed on record before the writ
Court as Annexure R2 by the appellants. According to
them, they stated that they were coffee planters and had
sufficient interest in the State of Karnataka and had
decided to diversify their activities and were intending to
set up a software park. They had identified 12 acres of
land for their requirement for setting up the software and
IT parks in Survey Nos.10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3
of Devarabisanahalli Village and Survey Nos.27, 28, 29/1,
29/2, 30/1 of Kariyammana Agrahara, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. This letter was addressed to the
Minister for Large and Medium Industries, Government of
Karnataka on 29.08.2001 requesting the Minister to
- 11 -
organise acquisition of the aforesaid lands under single
unit complex scheme by the KIADB.
16. The total estimated project cost was to be around
Rs.48.00 crores. They also said they had identified few
clients at US and were negotiating with them and they
were very confident of establishing the industry and
achieving good business strategy.
17. The application submitted before the High Level
Committee/SLSWA would disclose the company as Royal
Fragances Private Limited, as the name of the promoter is
Royal Fragrances Private Limited, having its Head Office at
E-13/29, Harsha Bhawan, Ground Floor, Middle Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
18. A perusal of the application would suggest that
except for the column in respect of the requirement of
land, the investment on fixed assets - Rs.25 million,
building cost - 450 million and proposed employment of
persons around 1500, all the other columns are vacant. So
far as the part of the application, which requires to
- 12 -
disclose the promoter's background is completely blank
and in the application the Director's name is Santhosh
Garg and Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi.
19. The manner in which application has been filed would
suggest that the land acquisition for such a company was
only a stage-managed and a pre-determined affair. Such
an application ought to have been thrown in the dustbin.
But the said application was acted upon.
20. On the said application, the entire State machinery
was put into high speed motion to acquire the land for
such an applicant. The real purpose of the land acquisition
for the said company was not the industrial development
in the State, but to put the valuable assets for meagre
amount in their hands to develop the real estate for
residential and commercial purposes.
21. In the writ petition, respondent No 3 had stated that
it had retained the services of Jones Lang Lasalle and C. B.
Richard Ellis, two of the foremost leaders in property
- 13 -
management as its consultants, that would indicate the
real intention and purpose of the land.
22. The Chief Executive Officer of the KIADB himself had
submitted a report dated 05.10.2004 to the State
Government on the allegation that the land mafias was
involved in grabbing the land of the farmers, and
requested the State Government to enquire into the
background of the companies and assess their
requirements before granting any lands in their favour.
23. In the said report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer
to the Principal Secretary to the State Government, Department
of Commerce and Industries the names of (1) Vikas Telecom
Limited; (2) Royal Fragrances Pvt. Ltd.; (3) Premel Project Pvt.
Ltd.; (4) Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd.; (5) Adarsha Prime Project
Pvt. Ltd., it is clearly stated that none of the above firms had
earlier experience in the software production field or computer
related any other production field, and there is no evidence that
they are running such industries. It was also stated that because
of the fact that the land being acquired for unknown entities
closely held up by private people i.e., those who do not have any
- 14 -
experience or any activity in respect of software, computer etc.,
the villagers and land owners have been protesting for the last
two years. Because of this reason that the land was being
sought to be acquired for unknown non-existential entities, the
land for the companies like Infosys, well-known in the field, could
not be acquired for their purpose and use.
24. The report also highlighted that the activities of these
entities could not be identified and no definite information is
available and excessive area was sought to be acquired on
behalf of the companies under the SLSWA, even though the
farmers and the land losers are raising questions for handing
over the lands to these entities.
25. The report castigated the KIADB that the land had been
acquired with bad motive in order to help the land mafias and the
farmers' valuable lands were acquired in respect of which, the
questions in the assembly were raised and reports published in
the newspapers. The three entities held by the common Director
having one office with little shareholding and paid-up capital
namely, (1) Vikas Telecom Ltd. (2) Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd.
and (3) Royal Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. had been allotted valuable
- 15 -
lands to the extent of 100 acres, 25 acres and 29 acres 5 guntas
respectively. The report also states that the KIADB had acted to
help several private persons and land mafias to further their
interest without proper enquiry about the entities. It was further
stated that before proceeding further, the background eligibility
and extent of land required should be examined once again and
thereafter, the necessary decision should be taken for allotment
of the land. The name of the promoters of these three
companies as available in the files of the Karnataka Udyoga
Mitra are;
1. M/s. Vikas Telecom Ltd;
(i) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi
(ii) Mr. Santhosh Garg
(iii) Mr. DeviDass Garg
(iv) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg
(v) Mr. S.R. Rangan
(vi) Mr. S.N. Pathikonda
2. M/s. Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd;
(i) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi
(ii) Mr. Santhosh Garg
- 16 -
(iii) Smt. Archana Garg
(iv) Mr. Purushotham Garg
3. M/s. Royal Fragrances Pvt. Ltd;
(i) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi
(ii) Mr. Santhosh Garg
(iii) Mrs. Kusum Lata Garg
26. The preliminary notification for acquisition of land under
Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act was issued on 10.12.2001 and
the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act was
issued on 23.02.2004. The Government decided to denotify 36
guntas of lands of the appellants/respondents in Sy.Nos.10/2
measuring 23 guntas and Sy.No.10/3 measuring 13 guntas
situated at Devarabisanahalli Village vide orders dated
18.03.2009 and 23.05.2009. The petitioner has filed
W.P.No.17211/2009 challenging the above two notifications of
denotification of the petitioner's land. This writ petition was
connected with other writ petitions challenging the acquisition
proceedings and by one line observation in the impugned
judgment, W.P.No.17211/2009 came to be allowed.
- 17 -
27. KIADB's benevolence towards the respondent-company
can be measured from the fact that though the petitioner had
demanded only 12 acres of land, but KIADB, vide letter dated
24.11.2011, informed the petitioner that they would be allotted
29 acres and 7 1/2 guntas for which the petitioner was asked to
deposit Rs.84,26,250/- and allotted the land to an extent of 29
acres 7 1/2 guntas against their proposal for 12 acres.
Thereafter, an agreement was entered between the petitioner
and the KIADB.
28. It would be important to take note of the procedure
prescribed under the KIADB Act for land acquisition and the
procedure followed in the petitioner's case with respect to the
lands acquired for it. It is thus:
Procedure prescribed under KIADB Act Procedure followed in petitioner's
for Land acquisition Case
1. The object of the KIADB Act is to provide 1. On 30-8-2001 Royal Fragrance Pvt.
for the orderly establishment and Ltd., (RFPL) submitted application to
development of industries in suitable areas High Level Committee introducing
in the state and to achieve the said object, themselves as coffee planters.
the Board was established.
2. RFPL have identified Sy. 10/1, 10/2,
2. Under Section 3 and Section 28 of the 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3 Devarabisanahalli
Act, the State Government has the power to and Survey No. 27,28, 29/1, 29/2, 30/1,
declare any area in the State as an 30/2 and 32 of Kariyammana Agrahara
industrial area and acquire the lands for the Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South
purpose of the Act. Taluk.
- 18 -
3. Under Section 13 of the Act, the Board 3. Significant to note that application is
has been vested with the power to develop Blank- No details filled up.
industries and make them available to
industrial undertakings. 4.
4. The manner in which the lands so (i) On 18-9-2001 on such application,
acquired by KIADB is to be disposed of is the State Level Single Window Agency
governed by the Karnataka Industrial Area approved the acquisition of the above
Development Board Regulations 1979. mentioned lands through KIADB.
(Regulation for short)
5. Under Regulation 7, the Board shall notify (ii) In the 212th State Level Single
the availability of land, the manner of Window Agency meeting held on
disposal, the last date for submission of Tuesday 18th September 2001.
applications and such other particulars as
may be necessary in each case by giving ITEM 6 on Agenda- stated that
wide publicity through news papers having
circulation inside and outside Karnataka (iii) Promoters sought acquisition
State and invite applications from industries through KIADB for providing 12 Acres of
or persons intending to start industries. land in Sy.No. 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1,
11/2, 11/3, of Devarabisanahalli and
6. Under Regulation 9, the Board is Survey No. 27, 28, 29/1, 29/2, 30/1, of
empowered to register applications on Kariyammana Agrahara Village, Varthur
deposit of prescribed fee as in Regulation 8 Hobli Bangalore South Taluk- State
in the Forms prescribed in Regulation 4. Level Single Window Agency approved
the principle, the request of the
7. Under Regulation 10 the Board on being promoters.
satisfied that the persons, firm or company
who is in need and is likely to start (iv) State Level Single Window Agency
production with a reasonable period make has approved Acquisition of land pointed
an allotment in his/their favour. out by the promoter.
8. Regulation 13 even makes a provision to (v) Without authority of law- State Level
make allotment of plots in special cases in Single Window Agency not empowered
consultation with the State Government. under any Act, Rule or Regulation to
authorise-acquisition of land.
9. Thus the State Government acquires land
for the purpose of industrial development as (vi) Approval granted on the basis of
a whole and thereafter the Board develops blank application- whether approval can
and allots the land to various industries or be given in blank application when
companies on its satisfaction. statutorily required details are not filled
by the promoters
10. The State Government by G.O. dt.
6-08-2001 has constituted District/State (vii) Not available from record on what
Level Single Window Agency and the High basis approval granted.
Level Committee for consideration and
approval of industrial projects. (viii) Committee failed to see that the
primary and main object of the company
- 19 -
11. The above agencies have been created was;
to simplify the procedures with regard to
seeking the approval from different (a) manufacture of perfumery
authorities and agencies, maintenance of compounds, sada gutka, masala gutka,
registers; filing of returns and also gutka of every kind whether plain or
inspection, Government has approved tobacco, pan masala mouth fresheners,
certain proposals for simplified procedure. khaini, stuff khaini, flavours, fragrances,
aromatic compounds and mint etc.,
a) Designating Karnataka Udyoga Mitra at
the State Level and the DICs at the District (b)manufacture etc. of deodorisors,
Level as the Nodal Agency to obtain all depilators, toilet preparations, bath
clearances and approvals on behalf of the preparations, perfumed bath salts,
industry; odiferous preparations, agarbattis,
scents, flavours and sprays.
b) To introduce a common application form
for obtaining various clearances and (c) To act as distributors etc., of
approvals from different agencies and essential oil, perfumery compounds,
authorities; flavours, fragrances, and aromatic.
c) To categorise industries into two groups (d) To carry on house, land and estate
one, dangerous/hazardous and Highly agents, builders and developers etc.,
polluting industries. These industries will be
subjected to the normal approval/inspection
And 1st of the other objects is to carry
procedures as required by law. Two, non- on the business and purchasers of daily
polluting non-hazardous industries. Thesefarms, garden produce and all kinds in s
industrial proposals will be put under a fast
particular milk, cream, butter, ghee,
track clearance under the simplified cheese, poultry, eggs, fruit, vegetable
procedure with a self certification on oils, vegetable gee, porkpies, sausages,
compliance of applicable Rules and prawns, potted meat, table delicacies
Regulations; and purchase, acquire, keep, maintain,
etc., sell or otherwise dispose of all
d) Maintenance of combined registers and kinds of cattle, cows, buffaloes, pigs,
records as required under various poultry and live or dead stock of
Acts/Rules; description etc.,
e) Furnishing of combined monthly, And several other objects such as to
quarterly and yearly returns/reports under carry on business of slaughtering cattle,
various Acts/Rules; pigs, frogs, sheep, lamb and other
animals for food purposes ....and
f) Approval of the factory building/layouts to innumerable objects.
be undertaken by the Inspector of Factories
and Boilers by following the requirements Except development of software or
under the Factories Act as also the building anything to do with computers.
bylaws and other requirements of Village &
Gram Panchayats and the KIADB; (ix) The company has only two
shareholders.
g) To undertake a combined joint annual
inspection by Inspector of Factories and
Boilers, Karnataka State Pollution Control (x) The total capital of the company itself
- 20 -
Board and Labour Department based on is about 10 lakhs.
random sample generated out of
computerized data base; (xi) The company has no previous
experience in IT, computer technology,
h) To make the functioning of the software, hardware or anything related
District/State Level Single Window Agency to it.
as also the High Level Committee more
effective by introducing a scheme of (xii) It is not examined whether the
systematic appraisal and clearance of directors have educational qualification
projects in consultation with the concerned to commence on IT industry
departments.
(xiii) It is not examined when and why
12. There is nothing in the Government the company was started and its
Order which authorise the committee to background not enquired into.
identify land and propose the same for
acquisition.
13. The Agency had no jurisdiction to
suggest/direct, approve acquisition of land
by KIADB.
29. It may also be noted that the speed and electricity with
which the KIADB and the State machinery had acted to acquire
the lands against the prescribed procedure for the petitioner
would throw light on mala fide, arbitrariness and illegality in
acquiring the valuable lands and divesting the farmers from their
land holdings for land mafias.
30. The application was filed by the petitioner before the
Karnataka Udyog Mitra on 30.08.2001 and within 18 days, the
High Level Committee approved the application. As mentioned
above, most of the columns were vacant and even the Director's
- 21 -
background was not mentioned. The preliminary notification
came to be issued on 10.12.2001 and the final notification was
issued on 23.02.2004. Everything appears to be stage-managed
to help and create land bank for the real estate development for
private benefit at the cost of the poor farmers and public interest.
31. The State Government, after taking into consideration the
various aspects, has denotified the lands. The petitioner in
whose favour the exercise was undertaken by the State to allot
the valuable lands in an illegal, mala fide and arbitrary manner
cannot have any objection.
32. The concept of 'eminent domain' is the State's sovereign
power to compulsorily take the private property for public use
and public purposes. However, this power has to be exercised
only for the public purpose subject to the constitutional limits.
The State cannot acquire the property of the private people to
create the wealth in an illegal, arbitrary and mala fide manner in
favour of the private individuals without there being any public
purpose. A deprivation of the property must be by an authority of
law and the acquisition must have a public purpose. If a land is
being allotted to an entity unknown and which has no expertize
- 22 -
or experience in the software or the computer related activities,
obviously, the purpose for which the land was acquired was
extraneous purpose and not for the public purpose. The Court
would not be expected to uphold the State action in taking the
private properties for private purposes. Acquiring the land of the
farmers and putting it in the hands of real estate developers, by
no means, can be said to be a public purpose.
33. The acquisition of the lands in favour of the petitioner is
nothing but a colourable exercise of the power, mala fide, arbitrary
and in violation of the mandatory procedure inasmuch as the
application filed by the petitioner-company itself was incomplete
and should have been thrown away. The high speed with which the
land was acquired for the petitioner is a complete mala fide
exercise of power and such acquisition cannot be upheld. It was a
day light dacoity on the lands of the poor farmers by the State
authorities in favour of land sharks. No person can be deprived of
his property without due process of law and that too, the property
can be acquired only for the public purpose. Therefore, we are of
the considered view that the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge insofar as allowing the writ petition
filed by the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
- 23 -
34. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.17211/2009 and allow this writ appeal.
In view of the disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if
any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
NG/BKV
