NEC REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. KIRAN POONACHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS@RES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is filed by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 15348/2008, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2009. wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition in pert and has held that the order of cancellation of the project of the writ Petitioner dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) shall be treated only as a show cause notice issued by the State High Level Clearance Committee (hereinafter called 'the High Level Committee') to the Petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why the approval of the project accorded to it on 18.11.2008 should not be recalled or withdrawn. The learned single Judge has kept open all the contentions available to the Petitioner to be raised as defences in the said proceeding before the Respondent - State and has further ordered that the authorities shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner and the owners of the land. The learned single Judge further held that the orders passed by the Government or by the High Level Committee consequent to Annexure 'A ™ to the writ petition dated 26.11.2008 were unenforceable.

(2.) THE Appellant herein filed W.P. No. 15348/2008 seeking for quashing of the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure 'A ™ to the writ petition) issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, wherein approval of the project proposal of the Petitioner to set up a "Tourist Complex, Commercial Space, Financial Hub, R&D Facilities with Residential Condominium, Service Apartment and Medical City" in Chalamakunte Village, Chikkajala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was withdrawn from the date of its issue. It is averred in the writ petition that the Petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of development of real estate projects. As the Petitioner was desirous of developing a "Tourist Complex, Commercial Space, Financial Hub and Residential Condominium and Medical City with Common Facilities" in Chalamakunte Village, Chikkajala Hobli, Devatrahalli Taluk, it made an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002, for approval of the said project to the Karnataka Udyog Mitra, after depositing a sum of Rs. 5.00,000/ -. The Petitioner proposed to invest Rs. 3660 Crores. In view of the fact that the quantum of investment was more than Rs. 50 crores, the matter came to be considered by the High Level Committee, The said project contemplates providing employment to more than 80,000 people and would generate considerable amount of revenue to the exchequer. The subject matter of the approval of the application filed by the Petitioner was deliberated in the 10th High Level Committee meeting held on 28.08.2007, 13th High Level Committee meeting held on 13.03.2008 and the 15th High Level Committee meeting held on 21.08.2008. In the 15th High Level Committee meeting held on 21.08.2008, the project of the Petitioner was approved and the Petitioner received a letter dated 18.10.2008 from the office of the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce stating that the State High Level Committee had approved the proposed project of the Petitioner. As per the decision of the High Level Committee, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, 'KIADB ™) was required to acquire and allot 500 acres of land to the Petitioner. Pursuant to the above said letter dated 18.10.2008, the State Government, after hearing all the parties including the Petitioner herein and after discussion and considering all the issues involved, has passed a detailed order en 18.11.2008 (Annexure 'G ™ to the writ petition). Subsequently, acting upon the said order, the Petitioner applied for acquisition and allotment of 500 acres of land in Chalamakunte Village to the KIADB, paving a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards the same. However, while approving the project of the Petitioner, the question as to whether the pendency of the applications for conferment of occupancy right under the Inams Act before the Land Tribunal would hinder acquisition of land was also considered and approval was granted. However, by order dated 26.11.2008 (annexure 'A' to the writ petition), the order dated 18.11.2008 approving the said project of the Petitioner was withdrawn by the Government from the date of issue. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed by the Appellant herein contending that the High Level Committee was statutorily empowered to approve or reject the projects. The fact of pendency of the applications for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of inam lands before the Land Tribunal was also considered by the High Level Committee and thereafter, the approval was granted. The order withdrawing the approval granted to the Petitioner for the project affects the Petitioner with civil consequences and the same could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order dated 26.11.2008 is bad in law. The Petitioner also invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel and contended that the Respondents were bound by the order dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure 'G' to the writ petition) approving the project of the Petitioner and the same could not be withdrawn and accordingly, sought for quashing of the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition).

(3.) RESPONDENTS 3 to 5 impleading application contending that the High Level Committee in its 13th meeting on 13.03.2008 had not approved the project and advised the Petitioner - Appellant to submit alternative suitable lands because the subject lands were classified as "agricultural lands". However, the High Level Committee ignoring its own order in its 15th meeting on 21.08.2008, accorded the approval for the project. It is further averred that their claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of portion of the lands in question is pending adjudication and the High Level Committee, without considering the factual position, has erroneously held that if the occupancy rights are confirmed, then compensation would be paid and if occupancy rights are not confirmed, the compensation would be remitted to the Government.