MYSORE FEEDS LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the validity of notification Annexure-E whereby the Special Deputy Commissioner declared certain lands to vest in the State Government under Sec. 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Petitioner firm was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in the year 1963 and has been carrying on the manufacture of cattle feed, poultry feed and pig feed in its factory at Pantharapalya village, Bangalore South Taluk. To expand its activities, it purchased about six acres 19 guntas of agricultural lands which were adjacent to its factory under a sale deed dated 17-1 -1973 out of which, about 19.151 guntas are stated to have been acquired from it by the Water Board.

(2.) In August 1973, petitioner applied under Sec. 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking permission to divert the user of these lands for non-agricultural purposes. The papers seem to have been returned and afresh application was filed by the petitioner on 30-6-1975. By an order dated 21-1-1976 the authority concerned issued a conversion certificate permitting the petitioner to utilise these lands for non-agricultural purposes as per Annexure-B. It is clear from this order that the Special Dy. Commissioner had ordered permission as per his proceedings dated 18 11-1975.

(3.) On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (ULCR Act for short), petitioner applied to the State Government seeking exemption under Sec. 20 of the said Act, which was granted on 10-3-1977. Petitioner states that it obtained a loan of Rs. 6.28 lakhs from Karnataka State Financial Corporation by hypothecating the lands to the said Corporation in the year 1978 By an additional statement, petitioner has averred that it has obtained sanction for its proposed construction of factory buildings from the Bangalore Development Authority for industrial purposes. State Government has also issued utilisation certificate under the ULCR Act based on the report of the Director of Industries. It is clear that vast sums of money has been expended by petitioner for these developmental activities involved in the establishment of its factory.