CENTURY CENTRAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA; KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD; STATE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE AND ORS; BRUHUT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PA LIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P.Nos.47552-47553/2012 the petitioner has called into question the third respondent's order, dated 12.9.2012 (Annexure-M) approving the fifth respondent's project proposal and recommending to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short) to acquire 1 acre 4 guntas out of 2 acres 29 guntas of the land belonging to the petitioner. It has also called into question the second respondent KIADB's communication, dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure-N) issued to its Special Land Acquisition Officer ('SLAO' for short) to submit the proposal for the issuance of the notifications under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short). It has also challenged the fourth respondent's endorsement, dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure-P) directing the petitioner to suspend the ongoing civil construction work on the land in question because a doubt has cropped up as to whether or not the non-agricultural conversion order is obtained.

(2.) Sri G.L.Vishwanath, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constructing the residential and commercial apartments on the land in question after getting the plan sanctioned by the fourth respondent Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short). He submits that the land in question is abutting the school being run by the respondent No.5. He submits that the sixth respondent Sri Srinivas was the MLA belonging to the then ruling party. He submits that the Secretary of the fifth respondent Trust is the wife of the respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were insisting that the petitioner must give the land in question on sale to the respondent Nos.5 and 6. On the petitioner not obliging them, they have approached the Government and the KIADB with the request that the land be compulsorily acquired for them and be made over to them.

(3.) Sri Vishwanath submits that the respondent No.5 submitted the application for the approval of the project to the respondent No.3 Karnataka Udyog Mitra ('KUM' for short) on 9.8.2012. But the said application is submitted without complying with the Instruction No.13 of the application for the payment of processing fee of Rs. 30,000/-. Subsequently, that is on 14.8.2012, the petitioner appears to have purchased the demand draft and submitted it to the KUM.