-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 13570 OF 2020 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN M/S ROYAL FRAGRANCES PRIVATE LIMITED BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.221, G-7M, MAHARANI BAGH NEW DELHI-110065 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AMAN MISHRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA SR. COUNSEL, FOR SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 2 . STATE LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE KARNATAKA UDYOGA MITRA KHANIJA BHAVAN 3RD FLOOR, EAST WING NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 -2- REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMETN AND DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA UDYOGA MITRA KHANIJA BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR-EAST WING, NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BEGNALURU-560001. SAI SRUSHTI INFRA TECH PVT. LIMITED PLOT NO.17F, 3RD FLOOR 18TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, SECTOR3, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102. SAI SRUSHTI INFRASTRUCTURE INNOVATION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMAPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT SRIRAM TOWERS NO.537, AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560071 M/S. PBR INFO TECH ARENA NO.165/2, KRISHNA RAJU LAYOUT DORAISANIPALYA BANGALORE-560076. M/S RPB TECH PARK NO.165/2, 1ST FLOOR KRISHNA RAJU LAYOUT DORAISANIPALYA BANGALORE-560076. CVS TECH ZONE LLP SY NO.165/2, WARD NO.187, KATHA NO.244/238/229/165/2 KRISHNARAJA LAYOUT -3- 9. DORAISANIPALYA BANGALORE-560076. STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE KARNATAKA UDYOGA MITRA KHANIJA BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR-EAST WING, NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REP BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE ……RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RAMU S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5 SMT.SUKRUTA.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 & R9 SRI. P.K. SRIKARA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAYAPPA Y HADAGALI., ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING AND / OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED APPROVAL DATED 7/11/2012 VIDE NO.KUM/SLSWCC-75/DD-2/650/2012-13 AT ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY R-3 AND ALSO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 6/12/2017 VIDE NO.1&C/ID/SLSWCC-104/E5/2017-18 AT ANNEXURE L ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ -4- petition challenging the order at Annexure-K passed by the 3rd respondent – Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, while also seeking to quash and set aside order at Annexure-L, allotment letters and lease-cum-sale agreements registered by the 1st respondent – KIADB in favour of respondents No.5 to 8 herein. 2. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner company had made an application before the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra (for short hereinafter referred to as “KUM”) for allotment of land for the purpose of setting up a Software Park/IT park. The State Level Single Window Agency (for short hereinafter referred to as “SLSWA”), in its 212th meeting held on 18.09.2001, resolved to sanction and approved in principle, to acquire 12 acres of land in Sy.Nos.10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3 of Devarabisanahalli and Sy.Nos.27, 28, 29/1, 29/2 and 30/1 of Kariyammana Agrahara, Bangalore South Taluk for the purpose of setting up Software Park/IT Park. At Annexure- D, dated 09.10.2001 is the communication made by the Managing Director of Karnataka Biotechnology and -5- Information Technology Services to the petitioner, informing the approval granted by the SLSWA. At Annexure-E is the communication dated 18.10.2001 made by the Executive Officer of KUM to the CEO and Executive Member of KIADB informing the KIADB of the decision taken by the SLSWA, while also directing the KIADB to proceed to acquire the said lands for the benefit of the petitioner. Thereafter, the KIADB entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 18.10.2001 agreeing to make available, 12 acres of land in said survey numbers to the petitioner. It was agreed that the KIADB will acquire the lands for the benefit of the petitioner under the terms of conditions of the agreement. It was agreed that the petitioner company shall pay 40% of the tentative cost of the land within 15 days and the remaining 60% to be paid before sending the draft final notification under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. 3. At Annexure-G is the communication made by the petitioner on 05.11.2001 seeking 22 acres 2½ guntas instead of 12 acres as a compact and contiguous block. It is -6- stated in the petition that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards the tentative cost along with Rs.10,000/- as earnest money deposit, along with the application itself. Further, the petitioner received a communication dated 24.11.2001, to pay a sum of Rs.84,26,250/- towards additional land cost. The same was paid by the petitioner and as on date the petitioner has paid Rs.1,34,10,000/- to the respondent KIADB. Pursuant thereto, the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) was issued, followed by final notification dated 23.02.2004 under Section 28(4) of the Act for acquisition of 21 acres 2 guntas of land. At Annexure-J is a communication made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to the Deputy Development Officer –I, KIADB, stating that possession of 19 acres 38½ guntas were taken under Section 28(7) of the Act and handed over to the KIADB under Section 28(8) of the Act. 4. However, it is contended by the KIADB that subsequently a notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Act, excluding 2.17 acres from the acquisition and -7- from out of the said extent, 29½ guntas were allotted to one of the land owners M/s.CVS IT Park and what remained in the acquisition was 17 acres 35 ½ guntas. It is also not disputed that atleast 11 writ petitions were filed before this Court by the land owners, raising a challenge to the acquisition notifications. It is therefore contended by the KIADB that they could not proceed with the acquisition process. 5. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent – KUM and 9th respondent – SHLCC, in a meeting on 04.10.2012, decided to allot 9 acres 34½ guntas from amongst the lands at Kariyammana Agrahara in favour of the 4th respondent M/s.Sai Srushti Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd., subject to the project proponent securing 100% consent from the land owners. This decision was revised by transferring the approval in favour of M/s.R.R.Plantina Infra on 06.12.2017. It is contended by KIADB that M/s.R.R.Platina submitted consent letters of the landlord on 13.08.2018 and 29.12.2018 and requested for allotment of land. It is stated in the statement of objections filed by KIADB that in terms of the -8- recommendation of the Price Advisory Committee, M/s.R.R.Platina deposited the compensation amount. Thereafter, allotments are sought to be made in favour of the other respondents. The petitioner company has therefore raised a challenge to the action of the KIADB, KUM and SHLCC, which ignored the acquisition made by the Government for the benefit of the petitioner company and allotment of the same lands in favour of the private respondents. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- KIADB had clearly taken a stand before this Court in the writ petitions filed at the hands of the land owners that the lands in question are identified for the benefit of the petitioner herein and that the petitioner was called upon to remit the cost of the entire extent of 29 acres 7½ guntas of land and upon the collection of the cost of acquisition at the hands of the petitioner, the acquisition notifications were issued. It was contended by the KIADB before this Court in the said writ petitions that the SLSWA had approved the -9- proposal and the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, the Nodal agency to aid implementation of the proposal, had called upon the KIADB to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the lands for the projects proposed by the petitioner. It was contended that as the proposal of the petitioner were approved after due scrutiny by several agencies set up by the State Government, no mala fides could be attributed against the State or KIADB. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the KIADB, the State and its agencies and held that there is no illegality to be found in the manner in which the land was sought to be acquired albeit for the ultimate benefit of a single entity (the petitioner herein) and therefore, the acquisition proceedings were upheld while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the land owners. The writ petitions filed by the petitioner to quash the denotification order was allowed and the said notification issued by the State Government was set aside. 7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the judgment was rendered in the writ petitions on 06.03.2013, however, -10- writ appeals were filed by the aggrieved land owners in W.A.Nos.2896/2013, 2898/2013, 2808/2013 and 2809/2013. It is because of the pendency of the writ appeals that the petitioners were not able to proceed further and neither did the KIADB call upon the petitioners to pay the balance cost of acquisition. The petitioners were never informed by the KIADB regarding the decision taken by the SLSWA to allot a portion of the lands to the private respondents herein. In fact, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.14072/2005 seeking directions to the KIADB to handover vacant possession of the acquired lands to the petitioner. However, the said writ petition was disposed of on 10.04.2008 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings were challenged by the land owners and therefore, the prayer made in the writ petition was held to be premature. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court if KIADB did not take action after disposal of the writ petitions filed at the hands of the land owners. -11- 8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra would further point out to Annexure ‘N’, a communication dated 18.08.2020 made by the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member of KIADB addressed to the Commissioner and Director, Department of Commerce and Industries, where the CEO has clearly stated that the allotment initially made in favour of the petitioner still remains and there is no decision taken to cancel the said allotment and in that regard, instructions were sought by the CEO. That being the position, it is contended that there being no fault at the hands of the petitioner, the respondent-authorities and the State could not allot the lands in question in favour of the private respondents herein. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra, would also submit that there is no scheme under the provisions of the KIAD Act for allotment of developed lands to the owners of the lands, in lieu of compensation. It is therefore submitted that the respondent-authorities could not have allotted a portion of the lands acquired for the benefit of the petitioner to the land owners. The learned Senior Counsel -12- has also made submissions regarding the legal status of respondent No.4-Company and transfer of approval to respondent No.5 being non est and invalid. Information is also placed on record to buttress the contention of the petitioner that respondents No.4 and 5, in collusion, are utilizing the lands acquired by the State for the benefit of the petitioner, only to raise funds for their own benefit and turning it into a real estate business. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the respondent-KIADB does not dispute the fact that initially the lands in question were notified for acquisition, for the benefit of the petitioner. However, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in remaining silent for more than a decade, without paying the balance consideration of acquisition, clearly shows that the petitioner gave up the desire to acquire the lands in question. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot dispute the fact that writ petitions were filed at the hands of the land owners in the year 2004 and the said writ petitions were dismissed in the year 2013. It -13- is also not disputed by the petitioner that writ appeals were filed in the year 2013 and in the meanwhile, the petitioner hardly made any effort to seek possession of the lands and seek approvals for establishing the industry. In the meanwhile, 2 acres 17 guntas of land were denotified by the State on 12.12.2011. Further, another 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.11/2 of Devarabeesanahalli were also denotified. It is at that juncture that M/s.Sai Shrusti Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd., came forward seeking allotment, with an assurance that they would obtain the consent of the land owners. Under those circumstances, the SLSWA took a decision to allot the lands in favour of the private respondents herein, on condition that they should get the consent of the land owners. Accordingly, the private respondents were able to obtain the consent of the land owners and as per the approval granted by the Price Advisory Committee, the compensation was determined by consent and the private respondents have paid the compensation to the land owners. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that on 11.12.2020 SWLCC meeting was held and it was resolved to continue with the allotment made in favour of -14- M/s.R.R.Plantina Infra and also to identify alternative lands for the petitioner. In the same resolution, a decision was taken to allot 27 guntas of land to M/s.PBR Info Tech Arena and 29½ guntas in favour of M/s.CVS IT Park (owner of land in Sy.No.54/4). An Office Order was also issued by the SWLCC on 07.01.2021 to allot alternative lands to the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that at this length of time and having regard to the payment already received at the hands of the private respondents herein, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be allowed. It is prayed that the respondent-KIADB and the State authorities may be permitted to allot alternative lands to the petitioner. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 vehemently contended that the petitioner was sitting on the fence and watching the efforts taken by respondents No.4 and 5 to convince the land owners to give up litigation and accept consent award. It is contended that the said respondents have deposited the compensation amount of -15- Rs.42,90,30,000/- on 13.07.2020. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that even if it is true that the petitioner deposited Rs.1,34,10,000/- as on date, this Court should take note of the fact that the land owners gave up litigation only on accepting consent award at Rs.42,90,30,000/-. At any rate, the petitioner is sure not to come forward to pay the said amount as compensation to the land owners. The petitioner does not have the capacity to pay such compensation and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of the situation. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the clock cannot be put back. The private respondents, more particularly respondents No.4 and 5 have made the payment of compensation as agreed by the land owners and the land owners have given up litigation only after accepting the offer made by respondents No.4 and 5. The situation has become irreversible. 12. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra, appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsels Sri Shashikiran Shetty, appearing on behalf of Sri H.L.Pradeep -16- Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent-KIADB, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Counsel Sri Ramu S., for respondents No.4 and 5, learned Counsel Smt. Sukruta R. for respondents No.2, 3 and 9 and Sri P.K.Srikara for Sri Rayappa Y.Hadagali, learned Counsels for respondents No.6 to 8 and perused the petition papers. 13. The undisputed facts are that initially the lands were notified and acquired for the benefit of the petitioner- Company. It is broadly agreed at the hands of the KIADB, the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee and Karnataka Udyoga Mitra that no formal communication or notice is issued to the petitioner before considering the proposal given by respondents no.4 and 5. No material is placed at the hands of the respondent authorities to show that the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance consideration of acquisition of the lands in question. No material is placed to show that prior notice was issued to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that on failure to pay the balance consideration, the allotment and the agreement -17- will be cancelled. To that extent, the petitioner has made out prima facie case. However, it is also undisputed that the land owners gave up litigation and accepted the consent award as agreed with respondents No.4 and 5. Information is placed before this Court at the hands of the respondents that respondents No.4 and 5 have deposited a sum of Rs.42,90,30,000/- as consent award and the same has been paid to the land owners. This Court is therefore required to give its thoughtful consideration having regard to these undisputed facts. 14. This Court can foresee a situation, if the writ petition is allowed and the allotment made by KIADB in favour of the private respondents herein is quashed and set aside. The amount deposited by respondents No.4 and 5 herein to the satisfaction of the land owners and the payment made to the land owners is an irreversible situation. It is also a fact that the in-principle allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the year 2003-04 was based on a tentative figure regarding cost of acquisition. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid only Rs.1,34,10,000/- as -18- on date. Under such circumstances, if the writ petition is allowed while setting aside the allotment made in favour of the private respondents herein, the KIADB will have to refund the entire amount deposited by the private respondents herein. The petitioner would therefore become liable to pay the said sum to KIADB and probably much more than the said amount already paid to the land owners. 15. Another alternative would be to direct the KIADB to allot the remaining extent of 5 acres and 29 guntas in favour of the petitioner-Company. However, on perusal of the sketch placed before this Court at the hands of the KIADB, this Court finds that the remaining extent of 5 acres 29 guntas are also scattered and do not form a contiguous unit. The biggest chunk of land amongst the remaining extent is in Sy.Nos.54/8, 54/6P and 54/7P (1-05, 0-20 and 0-35), totally measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas. This may not be useful to the petitioner-Company. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner-Company should be -19- given lands in an alternative area, at the rate prevailing in the years 2003-2004. 17. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is partly allowed. ii) Respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 9 are hereby directed to identify and allot minimum of 20 acres of land, alternatively, in a nearby industrial area, to the satisfaction of the petitioner-Company, at the rates prevailing in the year 2003-2004. iii) The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Pending I.As., if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY/JT CT: JL