- 1 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27

TH

DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI PATEL JETALAL RAMAJI

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

1(a) SMT. SHANTA BEN J. PATEL

W/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,

AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1

ST

FLOOR,

MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHURU HOBLI,

BANGALORE-560 032.

1(b)

SRI PRAKASH J. PATEL

S/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1

ST

FLOOR,

MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHURU HOBLI,

BANGALORE-560032.

1(c)

SRI KISHORE J. PATEL

S/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1

ST

FLOOR,

MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHURU HOBLI,

BANGALORE-560032.

1(d)

SRI DINESH J. PATEL

S/O LATE SRI PATEL JETHALAL RAMJI,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

R/AT FLAT NO.116, 1

ST

FLOOR,

®

- 2 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

MUNNEKOLALA,

VARTHURU HOBLI,

BANGALORE-560032.

(Appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) are

brought on record

v/o dated 25.11.2025)

2. SRI PATEL HIRALAL MURJI VARANI

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

S/O MURJI VARANI

RESIDING AT BANASAWADI ROAD

PAPAIAH REDDY LAYOUT

BANGALORE-560043

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE A/W

SMT. AADHYA CHALA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES

(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)

M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD

BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, II FLOOR,

RASTROTHAN PARISHATH BUILDING

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE-560001

3. ROYAL FRAGRANCES PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE

PROVISIONS OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956

PRESENTLY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE E-13/29

HARSHA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR

MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT PLACE

NEW DELHI-110 001

- 3 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

BRANCH OFFICE AT

NO.174, RAKSHITHA COMPLEX

9TH CROSS, INIDRANAGAR I STAGE

BANGALORE-38

AND HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

MR ASHOKA K R

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

S/O SHRI K T RAMASWAMY

RESIDING AT NO.495/65

4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE

A BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR

BANGALORE-560010

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W

SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1;

SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

SRI HAREESH NARASAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER DATED 06.03.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE

JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.17211/2009 AND DISMISS TH E

WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 02.12.2025, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

- 4 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed

impugning the judgment and award dated 06.03.2013

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17211/2009

(LA-KIADB) filed by the 3

rd

respondent herein.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The 3

rd

respondent herein, who was the petitioner in

the writ Court i.e., the Royal Fragrances Private Limited,

the Company said to have been incorporated under th e

provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its H ead

Office at No.E-13/29, "Harsha Bhawan, Ground Floor,

Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 ,

challenged the decision of the Government dated

18.03.2009 and a direction issued to the Karnataka

Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'the

- 5 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

KIADB') dated 23.05.2009 to denotify the land in

Sy.No.10/2 measuring 23 guntas, Sy.No.10/3 measurin g

13 guntas, totally measuring 36 guntas.

4. The other prayers made by the writ petitioner ar e

extracted hereunder :-

"(ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a

Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or

Direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus

restraining the Respondents from denotifying any

land covered under Survey Nos. 10/1 10/2 10/3

10/11, 10/12, 10/14, 10/15, 11/1, 11/2P, 11/3P,

54/1 to 54/6 54/7P & 54/8 of Devarabisanahalli, and

Survey No 29/1, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2 and 32 of

Kariyammana Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli,

Bangalore South Taluk, more particularly land

Bearing Sy No 10/2 and 10/3, which have been

acquired pursuant to final notification produced at

Annexure-W.

(iii) Issue a direction to the Respondents more

particularly the 2

nd

Respondent not to in any

manner deal with or allot the lands covered under

Survey Nos. 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/11, 10/12P ,,,

10/14, 10/15, 11/1, 11/2P, 11/3P, 54/1 to 54/6

54/7P & 54/8 of Devarabisanahalli, and Survey No

29/1 29/2 30/1, 30/2, and 32 of Kariyammana

Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South

Taluk, which have been notified, for the purpose of

exclusive use by the Petitioner to set up their

project as per Annexure W.

(iv) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a

Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or

direction in the nature of a writ of Mandamus

- 6 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

directing Respondents to continue and complete the

acquisition proceedings in respect of lands covered

under Survey Nos. 10/1, 10/2, 10/3 10/11, 10/12P,

10/14, 10/15, 11/1, 11/2P, 11/3P, 54/1 to 54/6,

54/7P & 54/8 of Devarabisanahalli, and Survey No

29/1, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, and 32 of Kariyammana

Agrahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South

Taluk, pursuant to the Gazette notification bearing

No. CI:255:SPQ:2001 dated 10.12.2001 issued by

1

st

Respondent vide Annexure-T.

(v) Pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any

other writ of order or direction in the nature of a

writ of Mandamus directing 1

st

and 2nd Respondents

to handover possession of lands which are in the

custody of the 2nd Respondent pursuant to the

Gazette notification bearing No.

CI:255:SPQ:2001Dated 23.02.2004 issued by 1

st

Respondent vide Annexure-W."

5. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment

dated 06.03.2013 has allowed the writ petition with out

taking note of the submissions and no discussion fi nds

place in respect of the respective case of the petitioner

and the respondents in the impugned judgment.

6. This is a peculiar case of gross misuse of the p ower

of eminent domain of the State in conferring the mo st

valuable natural resource i.e., the land in favour of

persons for consideration other than public interest, legally

- 7 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

valid, justified and based on constitutional morality. The

three companies viz., M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited, M /s.,

Supreme Build-cap Private Limited and M/s. Royal

Fragrances Private Limited i.e, respondent No.3, ha ve

managed to get allotment of about 154 acres of very

precious and valuable lands in Bengaluru city. All the three

concerns belong to the same set of Directors represented

by Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripati and Mr. Santhosh Gar g.

These three concerns have been sanctioned the follo wing

lands:

(a) 100 acres at Devarabisanahalli from KIADB in

85

th

High Level Committee meeting held on

14.08.2001,

(b) 35 acres at Devarabisanahalli in 86

th

High level

Committee meeting held on 22.10.2001; and

(c) 12 acres in Devarabisanahalli and Kariyammana

Agrahara on 212

th

Meeting of the Committee held on

18.09.2001.

7. These Companies have the common Directors and

Management and the Offices are allotted such a larg e

- 8 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

extent of lands for alleged purposes of integrated

infrastructural facilities for IT, Hospitality, Education,

Housing and for integrated project for IT park with

multiplex theatres along with Super Deluxe Hotels,

Shopping Complex and third for IT park. An extent of 150

acres of lands have been allotted in favour of priv ate

Companies owned and controlled by a few individuals

belonging to same family.

8. The question is whether the State can exercise i ts

eminent domain to favour the private entities/individuals

and whether such blatant favouritism for reasons unknown

in law can be said to be in public interest.

9. Before dealing further with the question of emine nt

domain of the State in the Land acquisition proceedings, it

would be apt to take note of the relevant facts.

10. The State Government vide Government Orders

dated 16.10.1990, 18.05.1991 and 07.04.1997 constit uted

the State Level Single Window Agency (for brevity 'the

SLSWA') under the Department of Commerce and

- 9 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

Industry to consider and to provide assistance to industrial

projects in their implementation.

11. The appellant No.1 had purchased 18 guntas of l and

in Survey No.10/2. The appellant No.2 had purchase d 5

guntas in Survey No.10/2 and 13 guntas in Survey No .

10/3 on 31.01.2000 in Devarabisanahalli Village, Varthur

Hobli, Bengaluru.

12. The Karnataka Udyogmitra, a body under the

Department of Commerce and Industries was created b y

the said Notification dated 06.08.2001, and it was

designated as the nodal agency to address all grievances

and obtain approvals for the industries.

13. The Royal Fragrances Private Limited i.e.,

respondent No. 3 herein, who was the petitioner in the

writ petition made an application, whose main objec t is

manufacture and production of gutka, a cancer causi ng

substance, as per the memorandum of association. An

application made to the SLSWA was for seeking appro val

for its project to set up a software park, public IT park in

- 10 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

Kariyammanna Agrahara and Devarabisanahali Villages ,

Bengaluru South.

14. The said Royal Fragrance Private Limited did no t

even have an iota of experience in IT industry or related

activity and they filed the application intending to promote

IT and Software etc.

15. The application was placed on record before the writ

Court as Annexure R2 by the appellants. According t o

them, they stated that they were coffee planters and had

sufficient interest in the State of Karnataka and h ad

decided to diversify their activities and were intending to

set up a software park. They had identified 12 acre s of

land for their requirement for setting up the software and

IT parks in Survey Nos.10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3

of Devarabisanahalli Village and Survey Nos.27, 28, 29/1,

29/2, 30/1 of Kariyammana Agrahara, Varthur Hobli,

Bangalore South Taluk. This letter was addressed to the

Minister for Large and Medium Industries, Governmen t of

Karnataka on 29.08.2001 requesting the Minister to

- 11 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

organise acquisition of the aforesaid lands under s ingle

unit complex scheme by the KIADB.

16. The total estimated project cost was to be arou nd

Rs.48.00 crores. They also said they had identified few

clients at US and were negotiating with them and the y

were very confident of establishing the industry an d

achieving good business strategy.

17. The application submitted before the High Level

Committee/SLSWA would disclose the company as Royal

Fragances Private Limited, as the name of the promoter is

Royal Fragrances Private Limited, having its Head Office at

E-13/29, Harsha Bhawan, Ground Floor, Middle Circle,

Connaught Place, New Delhi.

18. A perusal of the application would suggest that

except for the column in respect of the requirement of

land, the investment on fixed assets - Rs.25 millio n,

building cost - 450 million and proposed employment of

persons around 1500, all the other columns are vacant. So

far as the part of the application, which requires to

- 12 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

disclose the promoter's background is completely bl ank

and in the application the Director's name is Santh osh

Garg and Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi.

19. The manner in which application has been filed would

suggest that the land acquisition for such a company was

only a stage-managed and a pre-determined affair. S uch

an application ought to have been thrown in the dus tbin.

But the said application was acted upon.

20. On the said application, the entire State machi nery

was put into high speed motion to acquire the land for

such an applicant. The real purpose of the land acquisition

for the said company was not the industrial development

in the State, but to put the valuable assets for me agre

amount in their hands to develop the real estate fo r

residential and commercial purposes.

21. In the writ petition, respondent No 3 had stated that

it had retained the services of Jones Lang Lasalle and C. B.

Richard Ellis, two of the foremost leaders in prope rty

- 13 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

management as its consultants, that would indicate the

real intention and purpose of the land.

22. The Chief Executive Officer of the KIADB himself had

submitted a report dated 05.10.2004 to the State

Government on the allegation that the land mafias w as

involved in grabbing the land of the farmers, and

requested the State Government to enquire into the

background of the companies and assess their

requirements before granting any lands in their favour.

23. In the said report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer

to the Principal Secretary to the State Government, Department

of Commerce and Industries the names of (1) Vikas Telecom

Limited; (2) Royal Fragrances Pvt. Ltd.; (3) Premel Project Pvt.

Ltd.; (4) Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd.; (5) Adarsha Prime Project

Pvt. Ltd., it is clearly stated that none of the above firms had

earlier experience in the software production field or computer

related any other production field, and there is no evidence that

they are running such industries. It was also stated that because

of the fact that the land being acquired for unknown entities

closely held up by private people i.e., those who do not have any

- 14 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

experience or any activity in respect of software, computer etc.,

the villagers and land owners have been protesting for the last

two years. Because of this reason that the land was being

sought to be acquired for unknown non-existential entities, the

land for the companies like Infosys, well-known in the field, could

not be acquired for their purpose and use.

24. The report also highlighted that the activities of these

entities could not be identified and no definite information is

available and excessive area was sought to be acquired on

behalf of the companies under the SLSWA, even though the

farmers and the land losers are raising questions for handing

over the lands to these entities.

25. The report castigated the KIADB that the land had been

acquired with bad motive in order to help the land mafias and the

farmers' valuable lands were acquired in respect of which, the

questions in the assembly were raised and reports published in

the newspapers. The three entities held by the common Director

having one office with little shareholding and paid-up capital

namely, (1) Vikas Telecom Ltd. (2) Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd.

and (3) Royal Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. had been allotted valuable

- 15 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

lands to the extent of 100 acres, 25 acres and 29 acres 5 guntas

respectively. The report also states that the KIADB had acted to

help several private persons and land mafias to further their

interest without proper enquiry about the entities. It was further

stated that before proceeding further, the background eligibility

and extent of land required should be examined once again and

thereafter, the necessary decision should be taken for allotment

of the land. The name of the promoters of these thre e

companies as available in the files of the Karnataka Udyoga

Mitra are;

1. M/s. Vikas Telecom Ltd;

(i) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi

(ii) Mr. Santhosh Garg

(iii) Mr. DeviDass Garg

(iv) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg

(v) Mr. S.R. Rangan

(vi) Mr. S.N. Pathikonda

2. M/s. Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd;

(i) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi

(ii) Mr. Santhosh Garg

- 16 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

(iii) Smt. Archana Garg

(iv) Mr. Purushotham Garg

3. M/s. Royal Fragrances Pvt. Ltd;

(i) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi

(ii) Mr. Santhosh Garg

(iii) Mrs. Kusum Lata Garg

26. The preliminary notification for acquisition of land under

Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act was issued on 10.12.2001 and

the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act was

issued on 23.02.2004. The Government decided to denotify 36

guntas of lands of the appellants/respondents in Sy.Nos.10/2

measuring 23 guntas and Sy.No.10/3 measuring 13 guntas

situated at Devarabisanahalli Village vide orders dated

18.03.2009 and 23.05.2009. The petitioner has filed

W.P.No.17211/2009 challenging the above two notifications of

denotification of the petitioner's land. This writ petition was

connected with other writ petitions challenging the acquisition

proceedings and by one line observation in the impugned

judgment, W.P.No.17211/2009 came to be allowed.

- 17 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

27. KIADB's benevolence towards the respondent-company

can be measured from the fact that though the petitioner had

demanded only 12 acres of land, but KIADB, vide letter dated

24.11.2011, informed the petitioner that they would be allotted

29 acres and 7 1/2 guntas for which the petitioner was asked to

deposit Rs.84,26,250/- and allotted the land to an extent of 29

acres 7 1/2 guntas against their proposal for 12 acres.

Thereafter, an agreement was entered between the petitioner

and the KIADB.

28. It would be important to take note of the procedure

prescribed under the KIADB Act for land acquisition and the

procedure followed in the petitioner's case with respect to the

lands acquired for it. It is thus:

Procedure prescribed under KIADB Act

for Land acquisition

Procedure followed in petitioner's

Case

1. The object of the KIADB Act is to provide

for the orderly establishment and

development of industries in suitable areas

in the state and to achieve the said object,

the Board was established.

2. Under Section 3 and Section 28 of the

Act, the State Government has the power to

declare any area in the State as an

industrial area and acquire the lands for the

purpose of the Act.

1. On 30-8-2001 Royal Fragrance Pvt.

Ltd., (RFPL) submitted application to

High Level Committee introducing

themselves as coffee planters.

2. RFPL have identified Sy. 10/1, 10/2,

10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3 Devarabisanahalli

and Survey No. 27,28, 29/1, 29/2, 30/1,

30/2 and 32 of Kariyammana Agrahara

Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South

Taluk.

- 18 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

3. Under Section 13 of the Act, the Board

has been vested with the power to develop

industries and make them available to

industrial undertakings.

4. The manner in which the lands so

acquired by KIADB is to be disposed of is

governed by the Karnataka Industrial Area

Development Board Regulations 1979.

(Regulation for short)

5. Under Regulation 7, the Board shall notify

the availability of land, the manner of

disposal, the last date for submission of

applications and such other particulars as

may be necessary in each case by giving

wide publicity through news papers having

circulation inside and outside Karnataka

State and invite applications from industries

or persons intending to start industries.

6. Under Regulation 9, the Board is

empowered to register applications on

deposit of prescribed fee as in Regulation 8

in the Forms prescribed in Regulation 4.

7. Under Regulation 10 the Board on being

satisfied that the persons, firm or company

who is in need and is likely to start

production with a reasonable period make

an allotment in his/their favour.

8. Regulation 13 even makes a provision to

make allotment of plots in special cases in

consultation with the State Government.

9. Thus the State Government acquires land

for the purpose of industrial development as

a whole and thereafter the Board develops

and allots the land to various industries or

companies on its satisfaction.

10. The State Government by G.O. dt.

6-08-2001 has constituted District/State

Level Single Window Agency and the High

Level Committee for consideration and

approval of industrial projects.

3. Significant to note that application is

Blank- No details filled up.

4.

(i) On 18-9-2001 on such application,

the State Level Single Window Agency

approved the acquisition of the above

mentioned lands through KIADB.

(ii) In the 212th State Level Single

Window Agency meeting held on

Tuesday 18th September 2001.

ITEM 6 on Agenda- stated that

(iii) Promoters sought acquisition

through KIADB for providing 12 Acres of

land in Sy.No. 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1,

11/2, 11/3, of Devarabisanahalli and

Survey No. 27, 28, 29/1, 29/2, 30/1, of

Kariyammana Agrahara Village, Varthur

Hobli Bangalore South Taluk- State

Level Single Window Agency approved

the principle, the request of the

promoters.

(iv) State Level Single Window Agency

has approved Acquisition of land pointed

out by the promoter.

(v) Without authority of law- State Level

Single Window Agency not empowered

under any Act, Rule or Regulation to

authorise-acquisition of land.

(vi) Approval granted on the basis of

blank application- whether approval can

be given in blank application when

statutorily required details are not filled

by the promoters

(vii) Not available from record on what

basis approval granted.

(viii) Committee failed to see that the

primary and main object of the company

- 19 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

11. The above agencies have been created

to simplify the procedures with regard to

seeking the approval from different

authorities and agencies, maintenance of

registers; filing of returns and also

inspection, Government has approved

certain proposals for simplified procedure.

a) Designating Karnataka Udyoga Mitra at

the State Level and the DICs at the District

Level as the Nodal Agency to obtain all

clearances and approvals on behalf of the

industry;

b) To introduce a common application form

for obtaining various clearances and

approvals from different agencies and

authorities;

c) To categorise industries into two groups

one, dangerous/hazardous and Highly

polluting industries. These industries will be

subjected to the normal approval/inspection

procedures as required by law. Two, non-

polluting non-hazardous industries. These

industrial proposals will be put under a fast

track clearance under the simplified

procedure with a self certification on

compliance of applicable Rules and

Regulations;

d) Maintenance of combined registers and

records as required under various

Acts/Rules;

e) Furnishing of combined monthly,

quarterly and yearly returns/reports under

various Acts/Rules;

f) Approval of the factory building/layouts to

be undertaken by the Inspector of Factories

and Boilers by following the requirements

under the Factories Act as also the building

bylaws and other requirements of Village &

Gram Panchayats and the KIADB;

g) To undertake a combined joint annual

inspection by Inspector of Factories and

Boilers, Karnataka State Pollution Control

was;

(a) manufacture of perfumery

compounds, sada gutka, masala gutka,

gutka of every kind whether plain or

tobacco, pan masala mouth fresheners,

khaini, stuff khaini, flavours, fragrances,

aromatic compounds and mint etc.,

(b)manufacture etc. of deodorisors,

depilators, toilet preparations, bath

preparations, perfumed bath salts,

odiferous preparations, agarbattis,

scents, flavours and sprays.

(c) To act as distributors etc., of

essential oil, perfumery compounds,

flavours, fragrances, and aromatic.

(d) To carry on house, land and estate

agents, builders and developers etc.,

And 1st of the other objects is to carry

on the business and purchasers of daily

farms, garden produce and all kinds in s

particular milk, cream, butter, ghee,

cheese, poultry, eggs, fruit, vegetable

oils, vegetable gee, porkpies, sausages,

prawns, potted meat, table delicacies

and purchase, acquire, keep, maintain,

etc., sell or otherwise dispose of all

kinds of cattle, cows, buffaloes, pigs,

poultry and live or dead stock of

description etc.,

And several other objects such as to

carry on business of slaughtering cattle,

pigs, frogs, sheep, lamb and other

animals for food purposes ....and

innumerable objects.

Except development of software or

anything to do with computers.

(ix) The company has only two

shareholders.

(x) The total capital of the company itself

- 20 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

Board and Labour Department based on

random sample generated out of

computerized data base;

h) To make the functioning of the

District/State Level Single Window Agency

as also the High Level Committee more

effective by introducing a scheme of

systematic appraisal and clearance of

projects in consultation with the concerned

departments.

12. There is nothing in the Government

Order which authorise the committee to

identify land and propose the same for

acquisition.

13. The Agency had no jurisdiction to

suggest/direct, approve acquisition of land

by KIADB.

is about 10 lakhs.

(xi) The company has no previous

experience in IT, computer technology,

software, hardware or anything related

to it.

(xii) It is not examined whether the

directors have educational qualification

to commence on IT industry

(xiii) It is not examined when and why

the company was started and its

background not enquired into.

29. It may also be noted that the speed and electricity with

which the KIADB and the State machinery had acted to acquire

the lands against the prescribed procedure for the petitioner

would throw light on mala fide, arbitrariness and illegality in

acquiring the valuable lands and divesting the farmers from their

land holdings for land mafias.

30. The application was filed by the petitioner before the

Karnataka Udyog Mitra on 30.08.2001 and within 18 days, the

High Level Committee approved the application. As mentioned

above, most of the columns were vacant and even the Director's

- 21 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

background was not mentioned. The preliminary notification

came to be issued on 10.12.2001 and the final notification was

issued on 23.02.2004. Everything appears to be stage-managed

to help and create land bank for the real estate development for

private benefit at the cost of the poor farmers and public interest.

31. The State Government, after taking into consideration the

various aspects, has denotified the lands. The petitioner in

whose favour the exercise was undertaken by the State to allot

the valuable lands in an illegal, mala fide and arbitrary manner

cannot have any objection.

32. The concept of 'eminent domain' is the State's sovereign

power to compulsorily take the private property for public use

and public purposes. However, this power has to be exercised

only for the public purpose subject to the constitutional limits.

The State cannot acquire the property of the private people to

create the wealth in an illegal, arbitrary and mala fide manner in

favour of the private individuals without there being any public

purpose. A deprivation of the property must be by an authority of

law and the acquisition must have a public purpose. If a land is

being allotted to an entity unknown and which has no expertize

- 22 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

or experience in the software or the computer related activities,

obviously, the purpose for which the land was acquired was

extraneous purpose and not for the public purpose. The Court

would not be expected to uphold the State action in taking the

private properties for private purposes. Acquiring the land of the

farmers and putting it in the hands of real estate developers, by

no means, can be said to be a public purpose.

33. The acquisition of the lands in favour of the petitioner is

nothing but a colourable exercise of the power, mala fide, arbitrary

and in violation of the mandatory procedure inasmuch as the

application filed by the petitioner-company itself was incomplete

and should have been thrown away. The high speed with which the

land was acquired for the petitioner is a complete mala fide

exercise of power and such acquisition cannot be upheld. It was a

day light dacoity on the lands of the poor farmers by the State

authorities in favour of land sharks. No person can be deprived of

his property without due process of law and that too, the property

can be acquired only for the public purpose. Therefore, we are of

the considered view that the impugned judgment and order passed

by the learned Single Judge insofar as allowing the writ petition

filed by the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

- 23 -

WA No. 2790 of 2013

34. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and

order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.17211/2009 and allow this writ appeal.

In view of the disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if

any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(D K SINGH)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(TARA VITASTA GANJU)

JUDGE

NG/BKV