[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hadee Forging Private Limited vs Karnataka Industrial Areas on 17 March, 2026
-1-
WA No. 1133 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2025 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
HADEE FORGING PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT BALAJI COMPLEX
NEXT TO SILK BOARD,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU 560 076,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. HARISH M.K
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. SATISH K V, ADVOCATE)
signed by
NIRMALA
DEVI
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
KARNATAKA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
WA No. 1133 of 2025
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT.,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND DIRECTOR
FOR INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL/
SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO EXERCISE ITS CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27/05/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.14837/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID
WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.14837/2022 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
WA No. 1133 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
1. The present intra Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner
calling in question the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Writ
Petition No.14837/2022 (GM-KIADB) [impugned order]
whereunder, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge. The said petition was filed impugning
an order/communication dated 18.03.2022 rejecting the
representation made by the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that consequent to an
application made by the appellant to the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board [KIADB] it was issued with an allotment letter
dated 30.03.2016 allotting 2 acres of land in plot Nos.47 and 48 of
Jakkasandra Industrial Area, Kolar, [subject land] for setting up of
"cold forged and machined components for automobile and
aerospace industries" subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned in Annexure-A to the said letter. The said allotment was
a lease for a period of 99 years. The lease was liable to be
cancelled, in case, the subject land was not utilized within a period
of three years. The premium payable for allotment of the subject
land was fixed at `138 lakhs per acre. 30% of the tentative
premium of the land was to be paid on or before 29.04.2016 and
the balance tentative premium of `1,93,20,000.00 was to be paid
on or before 29.06.2016. The confirmatory letter of agreement
dated 16.04.2016 was issued by KIADB upon payment of
`2,76,00,000/- by the appellant being the entire premium cost of
the subject land.
3. The appellant had set up the industry and started its
commercial production on 08.11.2016 and complied with all the
conditions imposed by KIADB. Subsequently, Lease Deed dated
03.05.2016 was executed granting lease of the subject property for
a period of 99 years, which was registered on 11.05.2016.
Pursuant to the Government order dated 11.07.2017, the grant of
lease for a period of 99 years for allotment of land upto 2 acres was
modified as granting the same on a lease-cum-sale basis, the
lease period being 10 years. Accordingly, a Rectification Deed
dated 22.11.2018 was executed rectifying the lease deed dated
03.05.2016.
4. It was claimed by the appellant that it had set up the industry
in the border areas of Karnataka by investing high capital and it
was not in a position to achieve break even. The appellant claimed
to have suffered the loss of `1,19,09,468/- for the financial year
2017-18 and loss of `67,96,622/- for the financial year 2018-19. It
was further contended by the appellant that two other allottees
namely, M/s Deerfield Logistics Pvt.Ltd., [Deerfield] and M/s.
A.S.Global Logistics and Warehousing Services Pvt.Ltd.,
[A.S.Global] had been allotted land in the same industrial area at
`88 lakhs per acre, which benefit ought to be extended to the
appellant. Hence, the appellant sought for revision of the cost from
`138 lakhs per acre to `88 lakhs per acre and refund of a sum of
`1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) Claiming such
revision/refund, various representations were made.
5. Since the said representations were not considered, the
appellant preferred Writ Petition No.4134/2020. A learned Single
Judge of this Court by order dated 03.02.2022 disposed of the writ
petition with a direction to KIADB to consider the representation of
the appellant. Consequent to the same, the representation of the
appellant was rejected by communication/order dated 18.03.2022,
which was impugned in the writ petition.
6. The learned Single Judge noticed that KIADB in its meeting
held on 04.05.2016, which was affirmed on 04.06.2016, fixed the
rate of allotment of land at `88 lakhs per acre, which was
prospective in nature. That the allotment made to the appellant
having been made on 30.03.2016, the appellant was not entitled to
the benefit of said revision. It was further noticed that the
allotments made to Deerfield and A.S.Global were bulk allotments
and hence, the rate of allotment made in the said cases could not
be made applicable to the appellant, who was allotted 2 acres of
land. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge had erred in not noticing that the specific grievance
raised by the appellant regarding discriminatory allotment was not
considered in a proper perspective. That the KIADB has not
responded to the discriminatory allotment adopted by it in the
representation made by the appellant. It was further contended
that while the decision was taken to reduce the land cost by the
KIADB on 05.04.2016 itself, it has been misrepresented that the
decision to reduce the land cost was taken only on 04.06.2016.
That the appellant had made the payment and was entitled the
benefit of reduction of the cost. That by virtue of the decision taken
on 05.04.2016, the revised rate of land was `88/- lakhs per acre
and that the appellant was entitled for refund as sought.
8. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the
KIADB justifies the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
contends that the reduction in land cost was taken only after the
allotment was made to the appellant. That the allotment made to
Deerfield and A.S.Global were bulk allotments and hence, cannot
be equated with the allotment made in favour of the appellant. That
the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper,
which is not required to be interfered with by this Court in the
present appeal.
9. The essential factual matrix is undisputed, inasmuch as the
allotment of the subject property in favour of the appellant was
made vide allotment letter dated 30.03.2016 on lease basis for a
period of 99 years and the land cost was fixed at `138 lakhs per
acre. The entire land cost was to be paid within a period of 90
days i.e., on or before 29.04.2016. The appellant paid the entire
land cost of `2,76,00,000/- on 25.02.2016 and on 06.04.2016.
Hence, a confirmatory letter of allotment dated 16.04.2016 was
issued. A Lease Deed dated 03.05.2016 was executed granting
lease of the subject land for a period of 99 years. The said Lease
Deed was registered on 11.05.2016. Pursuant to Government
Order dated 11.07.2017, the grant of lease for a period of 99 years
for allotment of land up to two acres was modified as granting the
same on a lease-cum-sale basis whereunder, after the lease period
of 10 years, the Sale Deed was to be executed subject to
fulfillment of other conditions. Accordingly, a Rectification Deed
dated 22.11.2018 was executed rectifying the Lease Deed dated
03.05.2016 so as to grant the subject land for a lease of 10 years
instead of 99 years and thereafter, after the said period of 10 years,
the appellant would be entitled to seek for execution of the Sale
Deed of the subject land.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant during the pendency of
the writ petition had filed an application to bring on record certain
documents. The extract of the proceedings of the KIADB of the
339th Meeting held on 05.04.2016 has been placed on record
which indicate that various components for determination of land
costs were discussed including interest on land acquisition; interest
on development cost; development; and allotted area in a layout. It
was discussed regarding the percentage of land to be reserved for
parking, park and amenities etc., and that master plan to be
prepared accordingly. In the said context, it was discussed that
while 're-examining the Master Plan of earlier industrial areas and
allotment rates based on land acquisition and other infrastructure
cost at that point of time, the allottee who has paid full costs and
given letter of tentative allotment can come under the said
category'.
11. The proceedings of the meeting of KIADB held on
04.05.2016 discloses that the aspect with regard to fixing of the
rate of allotment was reviewed. With regard to the Jakkasandra
Industrial Area [JIA], it was noted that an extent of 627.45 acres
(private land of an extent of 543.45 acres and Government land of
an extent of 84 acres) was acquired for the development of JIA and
a compensation of `35 lakhs per acre was paid. KIADB in its
meeting held on 21.12.2013 fixed the rate of land at `145.50 lakhs
per acre, subsequently, the same was reduced in the meeting held
on 24.11.2014 to `138 lakhs per acre due to reduction in the pro-
rata cost of independent water supply scheme from `20.50 lakhs
per acre to `13 lakhs per acre. After reviewing the cost for various
works, it was noticed that the allotment rate was determined at
`84.12 lakhs per acre, which includes cost of power infrastructure,
cost of internal water distribution lines and roads. It was also
noticed that the pro-rata cost of independent water supply scheme
was not included, as the scheme was not yet finalized. That
Deerfield and A.S.Global have been allotted land at JIA at `88
- 10 -
lakhs per acre. Hence, it was decided to fix the allotment rate of
land at JIA at `88 lakhs per acre excluding the pro-rata cost of
independent water supply scheme and to revise the master plan of
the said industrial area as per the decision of the Board in its
meeting on 05.04.2016 to maximise the allotable area. It was also
decided that as and when independent water supply scheme is
implemented, the allottees will have to pay pro-rata cost of water
supply scheme based on their requirement. It is also noticed that
in the said meeting on 04.05.2016 the cost of allotment for various
other industrial areas were discussed and decided.
12. The appellant made a request for reducing the allotment
price of the land allotted to it and hence, sought for refund of a sum
of `1 crore. The said request was based on the decision taken in
339th Meeting of the KIADB held on 05.04.2016. The said
representation of the appellant was rejected vide the
communication dated 18.03.2022, which was impugned in the writ
petition.
13. Before the learned Single Judge, KIADB had filed a memo
placing on record the list of allotments made before 04.06.2016. It
is forthcoming that various allotments of land ranging from 10 acres
- 11 -
to 0.50 acres were made from the year 2014 up to 04.06.2016 at
`138 lakhs per acre. The allotment to A.S.Global was made on
26.06.2015 and to Deerfiled on 19.11.2015. It was specifically
noticed that with respect to said two allotments (namely A.S.Global
and Deerfield) the rate of allotment was `88 lakhs per acre as per
the decision of KIADB in its meeting held on 19.12.2015 for bulk
allotments. Various allotments that were made after 04.06.2016
were ranging from 15.84 acres to 0.25 acres at the rate of `88
lakhs per acre.
14. The learned Single Judge while considering the contentions
put forth by the appellant in the writ petition had noticed that KIADB
had allotted lands to Deerfiled and A.S.Global at `88 lakhs per acre
since they were bulk allotments. It was further held that allotment
to the appellant was made prior to 04.06.2016 and hence, KIADB
was justified in allotting the same at `138 lakhs per acre.
15. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that decision to reduce the cost of allotment of
land was taken in the meeting of KIADB held on 05.04.2016, as
has been noticed above, only the aspect with regard to the revision
of the cost of the land was discussed in the meeting held on
- 12 -
05.04.2016. The decision to reduce the cost of the land was taken
only in the meeting held on 04.06.2016.
16. In the present case, the appellant was allotted the land vide
allotment letter dated 30.03.2016. The appellant made payments
on 25.02.2016 and 06.04.2016. Accordingly, confirmatory letter of
allotment dated 16.04.2016 was issued. Consequent to the same,
the Lease Deed dated 03.05.2016 and Rectification Deed dated
22.11.2018 were executed. It is to be noticed that as on 05.04.2016
i.e., the first meeting of the KIADB, the appellant had not paid the
entire cost of the land.
17. The finding of the learned Single Judge that by virtue of the
allotments made to Deerfield and A.S.Global, no reduction in the
rate of allotment could be made in favour of the appellant, is just
and proper having regard to the specific contention of KIADB that
the allotments made to Deerfield and A.S.Global are bulk
allotments of 25 acres and 65 acres respectively, whereas the
allotment made to the appellant is 2 acres.
18. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that for bulk allotment, the area of land allotted should
exceed 50 acres, it is noticed that the decision to allot land to
- 13 -
Deerfield and A.S.Global was taken by KIADB having regard to the
extent of land that was allotted and keeping in mind the Industrial
Policy of 2014-2019.
19. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that no material was placed before the learned Single
Judge to indicate the terms of the new industrial policy, there is
sufficient material to demonstrate that the allotment of land in
favour of Deerfield and A.S.Global at `88 lakhs per acre was
discussed and decided by KIADB keeping in mind the industrial
policy of the State; since they were bulk allotments; as also
keeping in mind the nature of business carried on by the said
companies.
20. It is clear from the factual matrix as noticed above that the
allotment made in favour of the appellant was made before
04.06.2016 when the decision to reduce the rate of allotment in JIA
was taken. Having regard to the same, it is not open to the
appellant to claim allotment of land at a rate, which has
subsequently been reduced.
21. We find no error in the decision of the learned Single Judge
in dismissing the writ petition.
- 14 -
22. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed as being devoid
of merit.
23. All pending applications are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
nd/BS
