BANASHANKARI SUGARS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows :-The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner proposed to establish a sugar mill with a crushing capacity of 5000 TCD as well as a co-generation Plant of 22 MW capacity in tumkur Village of Shahapur Taluk, Gulbarga district, which is said to be a backward and underdeveloped area. The estimated cost of the project was Rs. 49. 70 crore. The petitioner had accordingly filed an application by way of an Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (hereinafter referred to as "iem", for brevity)with the fourth respondent, as on 2-5-2006. This was duly acknowledged and the fourth respondent approved the proposal, though prior to 1998, the establishment of a sugar mill was permissible only under a Letter of Intent or a Licence issued by the fourth respondent. Post - 1998 the Government of India has de-licensed the sugar industry and, therefore, persons interested could establish a mill without a licence but, were required to file an IEM, disclosing the details of the proposed project. It is the petitioner's contention that a person applying first, by way of an IEM, in respect of an area, would be treated as a priority holder.

(3.) THE petitioner had also forwarded a representation to the third respondent and requested for recommendation of a sugarcane command area. A similar representation was addressed to the second respondent, who is the competent authority under the Sugarcane (Control)Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "sc Order", for brevity) seeking allocation of the said cane command area. It is the petitioner's further contention that the petitioner negotiated with land holders for acquisition of the same to an extent of 168 acres. This acquisition was to be formalised through the karnataka Industrial Areas Development board of Karnataka State. These negotiations were formalised with about 45 land owners by entering into sale agreements by 31-8-2006. The petitioner had spent about Rs. 25 lakh on the proposed land acquisition alone.