JUDGMENT : K.V. ARAVIND, J. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Praveen Y. Devareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader along with Sri J.M. Gangadhar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4; Sri G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri Suresh S. Shettammanavar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 10 to 23; and Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for respondent No.9. 2. This writ petition is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961, seeking to challenge the order passed in Writ Petition No.27387/2016 dated 11.03.2025. Appellant No.1 is the writ petitioner. Appellant No.2 states that the project approved in the name of appellant No.1 has been transferred in its favour by virtue of the Government Order dated 16.01.2024. Consequently, the cause of action in the writ petition, as well as in the present writ appeal, continues in favour of appellant No.2. Brief facts are as follows: 3. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of mining iron ore. The appellant submitted a proposal to the State Government seeking approval to establish 1.5 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant. The State Government granted approval and accordingly acquired 922 acres of land. 3.1 Subsequently, the appellant submitted a proposal for expansion of the steel plant from 1.5 MTPA to 2.5 MTPA and sought additional land. The State High Level Clearance Committee (for short, 'SHLCC'), in its meeting held on 23.02.2007, granted approval for the expansion, which included acquisition of additional land of 995.50 Acres. One of the conditions imposed requiring the appellant to secure the consent of 75% of the landowners for such acquisition. 3.2 The appellant thereafter sought an extension of time to implement the project. The SHLCC granted an extension of two years for implementation. Simultaneously, the SHLCC directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, 'KIADB') to allot 104 acres of the land earlier approved for the appellant, in favour of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'KSSIDC') for the purpose of developing an Industrial Estate. The SHLCC granted an extension of two years for implementation. Simultaneously, the SHLCC directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, 'KIADB') to allot 104 acres of the land earlier approved for the appellant, in favour of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'KSSIDC') for the purpose of developing an Industrial Estate. Pursuant to this direction, the Government issued an order directing the KIADB to earmark 104 acres for KSSIDC. 3.3 The KIADB initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of the said 104 acres and handed over possession to KSSIDC, which thereafter developed industrial sites and allotted them to eligible allottees. 3.4 Aggrieved by the Final Notification acquiring the said land, as well as by the Government Order dated 02.11.2012 directing KIADB to earmark 104 acres in favour of KSSIDC out of the land initially approved for the appellant, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.27387/2016. The learned Single Judge, after considering various aspects, dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to the appellant to make a representation seeking allotment of alternate land. Submissions: 4. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the SHLCC approved the expansion of the steel plant and sanctioned the acquisition of 995.50 acres of land comprising various survey numbers of Basapura and other villages through the KIADB. Though such approval was granted, a condition was imposed requiring the appellants to secure the consent of 70% of the landowners. 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the condition requiring the appellant to secure the consent of landowners for acquisition was erroneously imposed, particularly when no such requirement had been imposed on similarly situated entities. 4.2 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that while the process of securing consent from the landowners was underway, the SHLCC erroneously approved the earmarking of 104 acres of the land in favour of KSSIDC for the formation of an industrial area, even though the said land formed part of the extent earlier approved in favour of the appellant by the SHLCC. 4.3 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the KIADB illegally and arbitrarily identified 104 acres of land and allotted the same to the KSSIDC. It is further submitted that the said 104 acres allotted to KSSIDC lies in the midst of the area proposed for the appellant’s expansion project. 4.3 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the KIADB illegally and arbitrarily identified 104 acres of land and allotted the same to the KSSIDC. It is further submitted that the said 104 acres allotted to KSSIDC lies in the midst of the area proposed for the appellant’s expansion project. 4.4 Learned Senior Counsel submits that by earmarking 104 acres in the middle of the land proposed for expansion, the very purpose of the acquisition namely, the expansion of the steel plant stands defeated. He further submits that unless the entire extent of the proposed land is made available, the expansion project cannot be implemented. 4.5 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that although the land was acquired, plots were formed, and industrial sheds were constructed, this Court had granted a stay of allotment in Writ Petition No.27387/2016. He submits that the subsequent formation of an industrial layout and the allotment of sites cannot, in law, constitute a justification for upholding acquisition of 104 acres of land in favour of KSSIDC. 4.6 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the extent of land earlier approved was modified. He also submits that the subject land is contiguous to the appellant’s existing plant, and unless the entire extent originally approved is made available, the proposed expansion of the plant would not be feasible or meaningful. 4.7 Learned Senior Counsel submits that if the land allotted in favour of KSSIDC is restored to the appellant, the appellant is prepared to reimburse the costs incurred by KSSIDC in respect of the said land. 5. Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4, submits that the State Government, in its proceedings dated 09.05.2008, accorded approval for the acquisition of 995.50 acres of land situated in various survey numbers of Basapura and other villages in Koppal Taluk for the expansion of 1.5 MTPA steel plant, subject to the condition that the appellant secure the consent of 75% of the landowners. It is further submitted that the time prescribed for implementation of the project was two years. It is further submitted that the time prescribed for implementation of the project was two years. 5.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the SHLCC, in its meeting held on 06.09.2012, amended its earlier approval and recommended that the KIADB to allot 104 acres of the land earlier approved in favour of the appellant to the KSSIDC for the purpose of developing an Industrial Estate. In the same proceedings, the appellant was granted an extension of two years for implementing the project. 5.2 It is further submitted that pursuant to the decision of the SHLCC, the KIADB approved the acquisition of land in favour of KSSIDC, and the KSSIDC deposited the acquisition cost. Thereafter, the preliminary and final notifications were issued on 22.02.2013 and 25.09.2014 respectively. Possession of the land was taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to the KIADB on 04.08.2016. 5.3 The KIADB constituted a Price Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal District, to determine the compensation. The Committee determined the compensation at Rs.15,50,000/- per acre, which was paid towards full and final settlement in respect of the acquisition. 5.4 Learned Senior Counsel submits that although the modification to the earlier approval was made on 06.09.2012, the appellant allowed the proceedings to continue without challenge, until the land ultimately vested with the KIADB pursuant to acquisition. 5.5 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the mere approval granted by the SHLCC does not confer any vested right upon the appellant in respect of the proposed land. He further submits that although the proposal for allotment of 104 acres in favour of KSSIDC was made on 06.09.2012, the writ petition challenging the said action came to be filed only in the year 2016, that is, after the acquisition proceedings had attained finality. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly contends that, on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable. 6. Sri G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for KSSIDC– respondent No.3, submits that pursuant to the approval, the extent of 104 acres was duly acquired and the compensation was deposited by KSSIDC, after which possession of the land was handed over. Learned Senior Counsel submits that an industrial layout has been formed in the said land, more than 180 industrial sheds have been constructed, and allotments are being made to various beneficiaries. Learned Senior Counsel submits that an industrial layout has been formed in the said land, more than 180 industrial sheds have been constructed, and allotments are being made to various beneficiaries. He submits that the land in question has been fully developed for industrial purposes and the position has become irreversible. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, in view of the allotments made, third-party rights have been created. 7. Sri Suresh S. Shettammanavar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 10 to 23, and Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9, support the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.3. These respondents are allottees at the hands of KSSIDC. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the appeal papers. Analysis: 9. Before adverting to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Court considers it appropriate to record certain aspects that transpired during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 10. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that they are prepared to reimburse the expenses incurred by the KSSIDC, this Court, by Order dated 14.08.2025, directed the appellants to file an affidavit. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed by the appellants through their authorised signatory. In the affidavit, the appellants state that a total sum of Rs.22.37 crores comprising Rs.17.37 crores towards the cost of land and an additional amount of Rs.5 crores would be reimbursed. 10.1 Sri G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, vehemently opposes the affidavit, contending that KSSIDC has undertaken extensive development of the industrial area and has incurred substantial expenditure towards development and construction of industrial sheds. It is stated that Rs.17.37 crores is paid as land acquisition compensation, a sum of Rs.38,18,51,719/- has been spent towards the development of Industrial Estate, Rs.3,07,60,143/- is spent towards construction of sheds and further sum of Rs.6,34,647/- and Rs.3,55,712/- towards electrical work and other incidental expenses. He submits that the amount proposed by the appellants for reimbursement is not remotely commensurate with the actual expenditure incurred. In view of the wide disparity between the sums claimed and the amounts allegedly expended, we are of the view that an equitable remedy cannot be fashioned in the present factual matrix. Accordingly, we shall proceed to decide the matter on merits. 11. In view of the wide disparity between the sums claimed and the amounts allegedly expended, we are of the view that an equitable remedy cannot be fashioned in the present factual matrix. Accordingly, we shall proceed to decide the matter on merits. 11. In the instant case, the 8th SHLCC, in its proceedings dated 23.02.2007, approved the proposal of the appellant to establish 1.5 MTPA steel plant and directed the KIADB to acquire 922 acres of land in Basapura Village, Koppal Taluk. Pursuant to the appellant’s request to enhance the installed capacity to 2.5 MTPA, the 13th SHLCC, in its proceedings held on 13.03.2008, approved the proposal to acquire and allot 995.50 acres of land for the project. However, two additional conditions were imposed, as communicated in the Government Order dated 09.05.2008: a) the promoter shall secure consent from the respective landowners in respect of 75% of the land proposed to be acquired by the KIADB prior to the commencement of acquisition; and b) the project proponents shall provide employment for at least one member of the family of each land loser. 11.1 This decision was the subject matter of a public interest litigation in Writ Petition No.11065/2008, which was subsequently withdrawn on 16.10.2014. 11.2 The appellant’s request for extension of time to implement the project was considered by the 29th SHLCC, which, in its meeting held on 06.09.2012, granted an extension of two years. However, in the same proceedings, the 29th SHLCC directed the KIADB to allot 104 acres of land, out of the extent earlier approved in favour of the appellant, to the KSSIDC for the formation of an Industrial Estate. Although the appellant requested withdrawal of the decision earmarking 104 acres in favour of KSSIDC, the request was not favourably considered. 11.3 The KIADB thereafter proceeded with the acquisition. KSSIDC deposited the compensation amount, and possession of the land was handed over to it. Subsequently, KSSIDC formed an industrial estate, constructed industrial sheds, and began allotting them to eligible beneficiaries. By virtue of such allotments, third-party interests have now been created. 12. The contention of the appellant is that the allotment of 995.50 acres of land was intended for the expansion of the existing steel plant and that the said extent was suitable for effective implementation and integration of the project. It is further asserted that the proposed land constitutes a contiguous block. 12. The contention of the appellant is that the allotment of 995.50 acres of land was intended for the expansion of the existing steel plant and that the said extent was suitable for effective implementation and integration of the project. It is further asserted that the proposed land constitutes a contiguous block. The appellant contends that the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.3 has created a discontinuity in the parcel of 995.50 acres, thereby frustrating the very purpose of the acquisition, as the expansion of the existing plant requires a contiguous extent of land. 12.1 The appellant has also placed reliance on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, submitting that its proposal for expansion was approved in the 13th SHLCC meeting held on 13.03.2008, wherein acquisition and allotment of 995.50 acres of land was sanctioned, subject to the condition that the appellant secure consent from 75% of the landowners in respect of the land proposed to be acquired. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant failed to secure such consent due to the steep rise in the cost of land. The project was required to be implemented within a prescribed time frame, which was breached. Though an extension was granted, the appellant again failed to meet the extended timeline. 12.2 In these circumstances, when the appellant has failed to comply with the essential condition of securing consent from the landowners, the plea that the allotment of 104 acres in favour of KSSIDC constitutes a breach of promissory estoppel is untenable. The SHLCC, in its 29th meeting held in September 2012, while granting a further extension of two years for implementation of the project, recommended the allotment of 104 acres out of the 995.50 acres to KSSIDC. After the land was acquired by KIADB for the benefit of KSSIDC, the appellant chose to challenge the acquisition and the consequent allotment of 104 acres. 12.3 One of the contentions raised by the appellant is that the KIADB acquired the land by paying exorbitant compensation. From the above submission, it is evident that the appellant is unwilling or unable to comply with the condition requiring procurement of consent from 75% of the landowners. When the appellant has failed to fulfil the conditions attached to the approval, it is not open to contend that the allotment of 104 acres in favour of respondent No.3 is in breach of such approval. When the appellant has failed to fulfil the conditions attached to the approval, it is not open to contend that the allotment of 104 acres in favour of respondent No.3 is in breach of such approval. Although the approval was granted in September 2012, the appellant chose to challenge it only in 2016, that is, after the land had been finally acquired by the KIADB. Such conduct militates against the appellant’s contention that the proposed expansion is unworkable unless the said 104 acres are made available to it. 13. The appellant, even as of today, has not placed before the Court any workable formula demonstrating how the conditions of approval are to be complied with. In the absence of such particulars, the mere assertion that the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.3 would create a patch and thereby frustrate the proposed expansion is untenable. 13.1 Additionally, the appellant has sought for quashing of the notification dated 25.09.2014 (Annexure–N) acquiring land measuring 104 acres, as well as the Government Order dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure–H) directing KIADB to earmark 104 acres of land in favour of KSSIDC. It is on record that the acquisition proceedings have been completed and compensation has been disbursed to the landowners. Upon taking possession, the land has been developed into an industrial area consisting of 463 plots of various sizes, wherein nearly 9 ‘C’ type sheds and 7 ‘D’ type sheds have been constructed and allotted to various allottees. 13.2 The acquisition proceedings have thus reached an irreversible stage. Even if the acquisition is quashed, as prayed for, the land would revert to the original landowners and the compensation already paid would become irrecoverable. A fresh acquisition would then have to be initiated to secure land for the appellant. The appellant has not come forward to compensate the cost incurred by KSSIDC. There is no statutory mechanism enabling KSSIDC to recover the compensation already disbursed. For this additional reason also, the prayer for quashing the acquisition cannot be entertained. 13.3 The consequences flowing from quashing the acquisition notification would be unenforceable, unimplementable, impractical, and would seriously prejudice the interests of all stakeholders. The entire exercise is rendered unworkable, particularly because the appellant permitted the development to progress, and has approached this Court belatedly after the nature of the land has been altered and rights have accrued in favour of third parties. 14. The entire exercise is rendered unworkable, particularly because the appellant permitted the development to progress, and has approached this Court belatedly after the nature of the land has been altered and rights have accrued in favour of third parties. 14. The learned Single Judge, while considering the contentions advanced by the appellant, has found that an extent of 995.50 acres was earmarked for the second phase of the appellant’s specialty steel plant, and that upon the project not being implemented within the stipulated period, the SHLCC, in its 29 th meeting held in September 2012, recommended, while extending the time frame, that 104 acres out of the said extent be allotted in favour of KSSIDC for formation of an industrial area for the benefit of Small Scale Industries. The learned Single Judge has further held that the mere earmarking of land does not confer any vested right on the appellant. 14.1 It is further held that the allotment in favour of KSSIDC is in the larger public interest, and that there are no mala fides in the exercise of power, indeed, no such allegations have even been made. The learned Single Judge has also held that, the appellant having failed to comply with the conditions of approval, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable. The learned Single Judge has further observed that even assuming any right had accrued to the appellant under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, such right must yield to the larger public interest in the promotion, development, and establishment of small-scale industries, particularly when the appellant has not fulfilled its obligations despite prolonged delay. It is also noted that although approval was granted in 2008, the acquisition proceedings had not commenced even as on 29.04.2016. The learned Single Judge has additionally held that the writ petition itself was filed after a lapse of more than one year and five months from the date of issuance of the impugned notification. For all these reasons, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 15. In addition to the reasons recorded hereinabove, we have carefully examined and considered the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge. The said findings are well- founded, and no error, factual or legal, is discernible therein. The appellant has failed to establish any demonstrable ground warranting interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. 16. 15. In addition to the reasons recorded hereinabove, we have carefully examined and considered the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge. The said findings are well- founded, and no error, factual or legal, is discernible therein. The appellant has failed to establish any demonstrable ground warranting interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. 16. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed. Pending I.A's, if any, stand disposed of.