Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1191 (KAR)

Bhoruka Steel Limited v. State of Karnataka

2015-10-15

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. There is no dispute that under the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 12-9-2005, Annexure-B, executed between petitioner and respondents-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, 'the KIADB'), having put the petitioner in possession of the immovable property, whereafter all the terms and conditions therein, are complied with entitling petitioner to an absolute sale deed, conveying the property in question on expiry of six years thereon, the KIADB having not complied with its statutory obligations, has resulted in this petition. Respondents-KIADB being a State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is required to comply with its contractual obligations emanating from statutory duties under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'KIAD Act') and cannot refrain from discharging such obligations. Petitioner though issued a notice through learned Counsel to KIADB to comply with its contractual obligations, when not responded, has resulted in this petition for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to execute and lodge for registration the sale deed conveying the property in question; to declare non-issuance of sale deed after expiry of six years of lease as illegal, discriminatory and violative in the eye of law; and that the act on the part of the second respondent is very highhanded manner and to impose exemplary cost. 2. Although petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections, nevertheless, learned Counsel for the second respondent on instructions, submits: (i) the full value of the allotted land is yet to be decided, due to pendency of a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') before the Civil Court, though for distribution of compensation amongst the claimants, and (ii) the Board in its resolution dated 5-11-2013 permitted execution of the sale deed only after the reference petition is disposed of so as to determine the actual amount payable for 8 acres 2 guntas of land allotted to the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the consideration paid by the petitioner on the date of the allotment of the said land was on the basis of the order in No. LAC/2004/96 of the Reference Court determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 12 lakhs while the pending reference petition is admittedly under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 over disbursement of compensation. 12 lakhs while the pending reference petition is admittedly under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 over disbursement of compensation. Even otherwise, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to extend an undertaking to the respondents-KIADB to pay enhanced value of the allotted land, in the event of any award by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation in respect of the land in question. 4. The aforesaid submission when not opposed, in the circumstances, there is a need to issue directions to the respondents-KIADB. In the result, this petition is allowed in the following terms: 1. The second respondent-KIADB to execute and lodge for registration the sale deed conveying 8 acres 2 guntas of land in favour of the petitioner, in terms of Clause 23 of the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 12-9-2005, Annexure-B; 2. Petitioner to furnish an undertaking with an indemnity bond for payment of balance value of the site, in the event of enhancement of compensation beyond Rs. 12 lakhs per acre by the Reference Court or Appellate Court, as the case may be; 3. Second respondent-KIADB to comply with the order by 30-11-2015.