B NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 7th September 2004 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting their claim with regard to allotment of land in plot Nos. 173 and 174 in EPIP area, II Phase, White field, Bangalore in lieu of 28 guntas of land acquired in Survey no. 38 of Sonnenahalli village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore, belonging to the first petitioner urging various facts and legal contentions have sought for quashing of the same and by way of an amended prayer, they have also sought for quashing of the order of allotment bearing No. IADB/15084/7522/2004-2005 dated 16. 9. 2004 vide Annexure-U and the possession certificate vide Annexure-V issued in favour of the 3rd respondent and the allotment letter bearing No. IADB/15032/8653/2004-2005 dated 8. 10. 2004 vide Annexure-W issued in favour of 3rd respondent and holding that the issue of allotment orders vide Annexure-U and W and possession Certificate vide Annexure-V issued by the 2nd respondent are illegal, null and void and further sought for holding that respondents-3 and 4 are not entitled for allotment of Plot Nos. 173 and 174 urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) THE necessary brief facts are stated for the purpose of considering the various legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties: it is the case of the petitioners that the property which was acquired by the 2nd respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as "board" in short) belongs to the 1st petitioner who is the father of the 2nd petitioner. They belong to Hindu joint and undivided family. It is the case of the petitioners that Survey No. 38 measuring 28 guntas and Survey No. 10/4 measuring 23 guntas of Sonnenahalli village, K. R. Puram Hobli, bangalore East Taluk were the properties of the petitioners. The land bearing Sy. No. 10/4 measuring 23 guntas was acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas development Board Act, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as "act"] that was the subject matter which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7865/ 2000. The 2nd respondent has allotted the land in favour of some industrial establishments, despite the interim order granted by this Court in the above said writ petition. Besides the above said fact, in order to accommodate the power requirement of the said industrial establishment, the 2nd respondent applied to the bescom to shift the then existing HT line from EPIP area through the land in Survey No. 38 belonging to the petitioners although the said land was not notified for acquisition by the Board. The petitioners objected for carrying shifting of the HT line over their property. When the facts stood thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner being one of the Co-owner of land bearing Sy. No. 38 made representation to the 2nd respondent-Board on 20th September 2000 vide Annexure-A stating the illegal acts of allotment of land in Sy. No. 10/4 which belongs to the petitioners in violation of the interim order granted by this Court as well as shifting of HT power lines upon the land bearing Sy. No. 38 and under those circumstances, the 2nd petitioner requested the Board for allotment of alternate land, if, the Board requires the said land for their requirements. It is the fact that on the basis of the said representation, the 2nd respondent conceded the request and allotted Plot Nos. 130 and 130-B of EPIP area on 21st October 2002 in exchange of the aforesaid lands of the petitioners with a condition that the petitioners should unconditionally withdraw the Writ Petition filed and surrender the land to the Board and also shall undertake to forego compensation amount for 28 guntas in Sy. No. 38 and 23 guntas in Sy. No. 10/4 and they shall pay the development cost in respect of 28 guntas and further they must bear the stamp duty and registration charges of the document. Thereafter, the petitioners obtained the lease-cum-sale agreement in respect of Plotno. 130-B. In respect of Plot No. 130 which is the adjacent site where the HT power line was passing through, they requested for alternate plots for that plot. The said request was considered by the Committee of the Board and communicated its decision dated 29th November 2002 stating that the Board had agreed to allot 28 guntas of land in lieu of Plot No. 130 at the earliest in exchange of said land and requested the petitioners to comply with the terms and conditions and directed to file necessary application in the prescribed form. It is their case that Board had communicated to consider the request made by them for grant of 28 guntas of land in lieu of Plot No. 1309 as requested in letter Annexure-C which is enclosed and marked as Annexure-D. The said offer was accepted by the petitioners as evidenced by letter Annexure-E dated 4th December 2002. The further case of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent in its letter dated 14th February 2003 informed the 2nd petitioner that the board in its meeting dated 3rd February 2003 resolved to grant alternate 28 guntas land in Phase ii, EPIP Area in lieu of land in Plot No. 130 of the same area and called upon the 2nd petitioner to select any alternate plot measuring 28 guntas among the available plots in Phase II, EPIP area in consultation with the site Engineer. The true copy of this letter is produced as Annexure-F. When the facts stood thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that the Board has issued the impugned order Annexure-T dated 7th September 2004 with reference to the letter dated 12th july 2004 by the 2nd petitioner stating that the practice of allotting industrial land in lieu of agricultural land acquired for the formation of industrial areas does not exist and in fact the other land losers who lost more than 500 acres of land for formation of EPIP area have not been allotted in the industrial land and that he had already been allotted 23 guntas land in Plot No. 130 of EPIP area in exchange of 23 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/4 acquired and that you are yet to start implementation of your proposed project; hence, your request for allotment of additional land in plot Nos. 173 and 174 of EPIP are in exchange of 28 guntas of land acquired in Sy. No. 38 cannot be conceded and therefore rejected.

(3.) THE correctness of this order is questioned by the petitioners urging legal grounds namely. It is urged that the Board is estopped from cancelling the resolution of the committee by not granting the suitable plot in lieu of allotment of plot No. 130 equivalent to land measuring 28 guntas for having been acquired a part of land in Sy. No. 38 to an extent of 28 guntas of land; and to further declare that during pendency of this petition, the order of allotment and issuance of Possession Certificate to respondents-3 and 4 is in contrary to the resolution of the Executive committee of the Board as the land which was proposed to be allotted to the petitioners and therefore the above said allotment letters are bad in law. The impugned order at Annexure-J is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is contended that the orders of allotment made in favour of respondents-3 and 4 are sought to be quashed as the same is illegal for the reason that a right was accrued in favour of the 2nd petitioner on the basis of the decision of the executive Committee and that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn on the assurance given by the Board that two industrial plots in lieu of acquisition of lands of the petitioners will be allotted in their favour. Admittedly, assurance was given for allotment of alternate land in so far as plots nos. 173 and 174 which is now been allotted in favour of respondents-3 and 4 and thereby, right to get allotment letter and possession certificate has been denied. Therefore, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned allotment made in favour of respondents-3 and 4 is liable to be quashed and a writ of mandamus is required to be issued to the Board to comply with the allotment process and allot plot Nos-173 and 174, II phase EPIP area measuring 28 guntas of land in favour of 2nd petitioner.