MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., STATE OF KARNATAKA AND THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 25593/2002 dated 12.3.2009 is called in question by the appellant Mangalore Urban Development Authority, who was respondent No. 2 before the learned Single Judge. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: The writ petition was filed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a Government of India enterprises. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board formed an industrial estate in a large chunk of land at Kuthethur, Bala, Permude, Thokur and Kalavaru in the District of D.K. Out of 1500 acres of land, large chunk of land was handed over to M/s. Mangalore Refinery and Petro Chemical Ltd., on lease -cum -sale agreement dated 8.12.1994. Out of that 436.37 acres of land is granted to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Accordingly, lease -cum -sale agreement came to be registered. In order to provide infrastructure facilities, the petitioner was required to obtain plan from KIADB and KIADB is the regulatory authority to regulate the construction and developmental activities to be carried on within the industrial area. After obtaining necessary licence and plan, the writ petitioner proceeded with the construction.

(2.) DURING the period of construction, the appellant Mangalore Urban Development Authority called upon the writ petitioner said to be exercising power under the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short, demanding a sum of Rs. 5,36,44,563/ - and the same was later reduced to Rs. 1,31,32,563/ - as per the notice dated 3.10.2000. Contending that the appellant has no power to demand the development charges in a sum of Rs. 1,31,32,563/ - and that there is no necessity for the writ petitioner to get plan sanctioned for construction of the building, the writ petition was filed.

(3.) THE Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board who was the third respondent before the learned Single Judge, filed detailed counter supporting case of the writ petitioner. According to the KIADB, the appellant Mangalore Urban Development authority has no right to demand the development charges from the allottees of an Industrial Shed made by the KIADB and it is the prerogative of the KIADB to form an industrial area under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, the KIAD Act for short. Accordingly, industrial area was established, industrial sites were earmarked, roads were provided including water and electricity and drainage facilities under the Act and Rules. It is the KIADB who has to regulate and monitor the sanctioning of the licence and plan and constructional activities by the allottees within the industrial area and the demand made by the appellant is invalid. Accordingly, the KIADB requested the Court to allow the writ petition of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,