AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.G. Sabhahit, J.—This Writ Appeal is filed by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 15348/2008, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2009. wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition in pert and has held that the order of cancellation of the project of the writ Petitioner dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition) shall be treated only as a show cause notice issued by the State High Level Clearance Committee (hereinafter called �the High Level Committee'') to the Petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why the approval of the project accorded to it on 18.11.2008 should not be recalled or withdrawn. The learned single Judge has kept open all the contentions available to the Petitioner to be raised as defences in the said proceeding before the Respondent - State and has further ordered that the authorities shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner and the owners of the land. The learned single Judge further held that the orders passed by the Government or by the High Level Committee consequent to Annexure �A� to the writ petition dated 26.11.2008 were unenforceable.
The Appellant herein filed W.P. No. 15348/2008 seeking for quashing of the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure �A� to the writ petition) issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, wherein approval of the project proposal of the Petitioner to set up a "Tourist Complex, Commercial Space, Financial Hub, R&D Facilities with Residential Condominium, Service Apartment and Medical City" in Chalamakunte Village, Chikkajala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was withdrawn from the date of its issue. It is averred in the writ petition that the Petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of development of real estate projects. As the Petitioner was desirous of developing a "Tourist Complex, Commercial Space, Financial Hub and Residential Condominium and Medical City with Common Facilities" in Chalamakunte Village, Chikkajala Hobli, Devatrahalli Taluk, it made an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002, for approval of the said project to the Karnataka Udyog Mitra, after depositing a sum of Rs. 5.00,000/-. The Petitioner proposed to invest Rs. 3660 Crores. In view of the fact that the quantum of investment was more than Rs. 50 crores, the matter came to be considered by the High Level Committee, The said project contemplates providing employment to more than 80,000 people and would generate considerable amount of revenue to the exchequer. The subject matter of the approval of the application filed by the Petitioner was deliberated in the 10th High Level Committee meeting held on 28.08.2007, 13th High Level Committee meeting held on 13.03.2008 and the 15th High Level Committee meeting held on 21.08.2008. In the 15th High Level Committee meeting held on 21.08.2008, the project of the Petitioner was approved and the Petitioner received a letter dated 18.10.2008 from the office of the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce stating that the State High Level Committee had approved the proposed project of the Petitioner. As per the decision of the High Level Committee, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, ''KIADB�) was required to acquire and allot 500 acres of land to the Petitioner. Pursuant to the above said letter dated 18.10.2008, the State Government, after hearing all the parties including the Petitioner herein and after discussion and considering all the issues involved, has passed a detailed order en 18.11.2008 (Annexure �G� to the writ petition). Subsequently, acting upon the said order, the Petitioner applied for acquisition and allotment of 500 acres of land in Chalamakunte Village to the KIADB, paving a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the same. However, while approving the project of the Petitioner, the question as to whether the pendency of the applications for conferment of occupancy right under the Inams Act before the Land Tribunal would hinder acquisition of land was also considered and approval was granted. However, by order dated 26.11.2008 (annexure ''A'' to the writ petition), the order dated 18.11.2008 approving the said project of the Petitioner was withdrawn by the Government from the date of issue. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed by the Appellant herein contending that the High Level Committee was statutorily empowered to approve or reject the projects. The fact of pendency of the applications for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of inam lands before the Land Tribunal was also considered by the High Level Committee and thereafter, the approval was granted. The order withdrawing the approval granted to the Petitioner for the project affects the Petitioner with civil consequences and the same could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order dated 26.11.2008 is bad in law. The Petitioner also invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel and contended that the Respondents were bound by the order dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure ''G'' to the writ petition) approving the project of the Petitioner and the same could not be withdrawn and accordingly, sought for quashing of the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition).
The petition was resisted by the Respondents by filing statement of objections. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the statement of objections denying the grounds urged in the writ petition and averred that the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 withdrawing the Government order dated 18.11.2008 is justified. It is averred that the KIADB was required to acquire 500 acres of land for the project of the Petitioner and the revenue department has raised objection before the high Level Committee stating that there was case pending before the Land Tribunal in respect of grant of occupancy rights. However, the High Level Committee has noted that if the occupancy rights are confirmed, occupants will get the compensation in case of acquistion. It is further averred that in the 10th State High level Committee meeting held on 28.08.2007, decision was taken by the Committee on Subject No. 46 and approved the project of the Petitioner. Subsequently, in the 13th meeting held by the State High Level Committee on 13.03.2008, the proposal was further reviewed and it was noted that the land identified for the project of the Petitioner was earmarked as agricultural zone in the interim master plan of Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (for short, B.I.A.A.P.A) and there is no provision to establish the proposed activity as per the zoning Regulations. Hence, the Committee resolved to advice the project proponents to identify a suitable alternate land for the project considering the zoning regulations of LPA/Town Planning Department prevailing in the area and the availability of infrastructure. In the 15th High Level Committee Meeting held on 21.08.2008, the Committee approved the project Of the Petitioner subject to the approval from the Urban Development Department/B.I.A.A.P.A. It is further averred that the Government order dated 18.11.2008, which was issued was subject to the approval from the Urban Development Department/B.I.A.A.P.A and the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, �K.I.A.D.B�), to approve plans etc., and only after clearances from the Planning Authority, the project proponent - Petitioner was entitled to take up all the developmental activities. It is further averred that the order dated 18.11.2008 was a conditional Government order and the said order has been withdrawn in view of the objection raised by the revenue department and the same would not in any way affect the rights and benefits conferred upon the Petitioner and the Petitioner has not proceeded further in the matter. There is no merit in the averment made in the writ petition that the order approving the project dated 18.11.2003 could not be recalled by the impugned order 26.11.2008.
Respondents 3 to 5 impleading application contending that the High Level Committee in its 13th meeting on 13.03.2008 had not approved the project and advised the Petitioner - Appellant to submit alternative suitable lands because the subject lands were classified as "agricultural lands". However, the High Level Committee ignoring its own order in its 15th meeting on 21.08.2008, accorded the approval for the project. It is further averred that their claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of portion of the lands in question is pending adjudication and the High Level Committee, without considering the factual position, has erroneously held that if the occupancy rights are confirmed, then compensation would be paid and if occupancy rights are not confirmed, the compensation would be remitted to the Government.
The learned single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties by order dated 13.02.2009, held that when the High Level Committee, who was the competent authority to scrutinize the applications and approve the project, had approved the project of the Petitioner and order had been issued to that effect on 18.11.2008 as per Annexure ''G'' to the writ petition, withdrawal of the said approval without hearing the Petitioner by order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition) would inflict the Petitioner with civil consequences and wherefore, the said order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge further held that the High Level Committee, in its meeting held on 21.07.2008 was not justified in ratifying the order passed by the Chief Minister dated 26.11.2008 withdrawing the order dated 18.11.2008, wherein approval was accorded to the project of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in part and ordered that Annexure ''A'' dated 26.11.2008 shall be treated only as a show cause notice issued by the High Level Committee calling upon it to show cause as to why the approval of the project accorded on 18.11.2008 should not be recalled or withdrawn. Further, the learned single Judge has kept open all the contentions available to the Petitioner to be raised as defences in the said proceeding before the Respondent - State and has further ordered that the authorities shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner and the owners of the land. The learned single Judge further held that all the orders passed by the Government or by the High Level Committee consequent to Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition dated 26.11.2008 were unenforceable. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge dated 13.02.2009, the writ Petitioner preferred Writ appeal No. 1295/2009 contending that the learned single Judge could not have treated annexure ''A� as show cause notice and the question of passing orders afresh would not arise.
This Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties by order dated 17.04.2009, allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 13.02.2009 and directed the Government to proceed on the basis of the approval granted on 18.11.2008 as per the terms and conditions mentioned there under, without prejudice to the rights of the land owners and subject to the result of the cases pending before the Land Tribunal with regard to the occupancy rights of the land owners. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by this Court in W.A. No. 1295/2009, the Civil Appeal Nos. 4070 and 4071 of 2010 arising out of petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 21385 and 22394 of 2009 were filed by the impleading applicants before the learned single Judge and the Hon''ble Supreme Court by order dated May 04 2010, held that the order passed in the writ appeal could not have been passed without hearing the impleading applicants - Respondents 3 to 5 herein as they were also proper and necessary parties to the appeal and set aside the order passed by this Court dated 17.04.2009 and accordingly, passed the following Order:
In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the appeal of Respondent No. 3 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Keeping in view the nature of the case, we request the High court to dispose of the appeal as early as possible but latest within four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
Copy of the above said order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2010 was received by this Court on 16.06.2010 and the certified copy of the judgment was received by this Court on 16.06.2010.
The impleading applicants, who had filed S.LPs., have been impleaded as Respondents 3 to 5 in this appeal by order dated 19.07.2010.
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 3 to 5.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that when the project of the Appellant had been sanctioned by the High Level Committee on 18.11.2008, after considering the contention of the Revenue department that the pendency of the applications before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right would not be an impediment to acquire the land, the government by subsequent order dated 26/11/2008, could not have withdrawn the approval of the project as there is no specific provision under the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 and the provisions of the General Clauses Act and the order of cancellation is issued on the basis of the direction given by the Chief Minister, without even affording opportunity to the appellant. The learned single Judge, having held that the order dated 26.11.2008 withdrawing approval of the project granted on 18.11.2008, could not have been passed without affording opportunity to the Appellant, ought to have quashed the order dated 26.11.2008 as being without jurisdiction and the question of treating the same as show cause notice would not arise. Therefore, the appeal is filed being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned single Judge remitting the matter to the Respondent - State for passing fresh orders by treating Annexure �A� to the writ petition dated 26 11.2008 as a show cause notice after hearing the affected parties. The learned senior counsel further contended that when the power of cancellation is absent in the statute, the said power cannot be exercised and in support of the contention that when the project was approved by order dated 18.11.2008 and the Appellant has already acted upon the approval of the said project with the expectation that the Project would be permitted to be implemented, the Government could not have cancelled the approval of the project by its subsequent order dated 26.11.2008, has relied upon the decision of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in the State of Kerala and Ors. v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai and Ors. AIR 1989 Supreme Court 49, wherein it has been held that once the order approving an application for opening of a new school is granted, then the successful applicant acquires a right of legitimate expectation to have his application further considered under the Kerala Education Act and such a right is enforceable in law. The view of the Division Bench that therefore, the general power of rescindment available to the State u/s 20 of the General Clauses Act is not available was upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in H.C. Suman and another Vs. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. New Delhi and others, , wherein it has been held that when the order of regularization had been passed and the same had been approved by the Lieutenant Governor, the same could not have been withdrawn in exercise of the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly AIR 1953 SC 1018, wherein it is held that where there is no power to cancel or revoke a notification issued u/s 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, bonafides of the Government can hardly validate the impugned cancellation. The learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ajay Singh and others, , wherein the question as to whether the Government had the power to replace a member appointed in terms of the Commission of Enquiry Act by exercising power u/s 21 of the General Clauses Act was considered and it was held that the power to rescind any notification conferred generally in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was clearly inapplicable In the scheme of Commissions of Inquiry Act, which expressly provides for the exercise of this power in relation to a Commission constituted u/s 3 of the Act. The learned Counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Kamla Prasad Khetan Vs. The Union of India (UOI), , wherein the scope of power of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, has been explained as follows:
When Section 21 of the General Clauses, Act makes the power to amend exercisable subject to the like condition as in the main Act, it does not contemplate those conditions upon the fulfilment of which the right to issue the order arises under the main Act. If this were so, the power of amendment conferred by Section 21 would have been wholly redundant and unnecessary.
The learned senior counsel further submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly held that when the withdrawal of the order approving the project itself is void, the question of ratification of the same would not arise and permitting the Respondent - State to take a decision afresh by hearing the writ Petitioner would also be of no use and since the decision is already prejudged and will not yield any fruitful purpose. In support of the said contention, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hobble Court in Siemens v. State of Maharashtra 2006 AIR SCW 6380, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that while considering the validity of the demand notice demanding payment of certain sum of money as such and has observed that if the Court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose and quashed the demand notice though it was in the form of a show cause notice. In support of his contention that ratification could not have been passed in respect of a void order, the learned senior counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, , wherein it has been held that when there was no power for the Vice Chancellor to take any disciplinary action as that was not provided for in the statute, any subsequent ratification of the initially void decision of the Vice Chancellor is also invalid. The learned senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 13.02.2009 in so far as it relates to the direction issued by the learned single Judge to treat annexure �A� to the writ petition dated 26.11.2008 as show cause notice and liberty given to the Respondent - State to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and the writ petition may be allowed in its entirety.
The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondents J and 2 submitted that the approval of the project by order dated 18.11.2008 was not an absolute order and it was a conditional order, which was subject to approval by the revenue authority and no action could be taken by the Appellant before approval of the project by the revenue authority, which was a condition for grant of final approval and wherefore, the question of promissory estoppel would not arise. The order dated 18.11.2008 at Annexure ''G'' to the writ petition would not confer any absolute right on the Appellant herein and the Government has exercised its power u/s 21 of the General Clauses Act and there is no bar for exercise of the said provision and the order passed by the Government dated 26.11.2008 has been ratified by the High Level Committee on 28.01.2009. It is further submitted that the proceedings of State High Level Committee in its 10th and 13th meeting would clearly show that there was objection from the revenue department for change of use of land as the land identified for the project was earmarked as agricultural zone in the interim master plan of B.I.A.A.P.A., and also, the applications for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land were pending consideration before the Land Tribunal. The High Level Committee resolved to advice the project proponent to identify a suitable alternate land for the project considering the zoning regulations of Local Planning Authority/Town Planning Department prevailing in the area and the availability of infrastructure. The Government order dated 18.11.2008 was issued subject to the approval from the Urban Development Department/B.I.A.A.P.A and K.I.A.D.B., to approve plans etc., and only after clearance from the Planning Authority, the, project proponent was entitled to take up all the developmental activities and in the absence of any such approval, the Appellant cannot be permitted to contend that he has invested for developmental activities. Therefore, the order passed by the Government withdrawing the order of approval dated 18.11.2008 is justified.
The learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 3 to 5, who have been impleaded as per the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court submitted that the approval of the project was subject to the particulars given by the Appellant regarding acquisition of 500 Acres of land and consent of the land owners had to be taken and admittedly, applications filed for re-grant in respect of 168 Acres of land are also pending consideration before the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the question of acquiring the land belonging to the applicants - Respondents 3 to 5 herein would not arise and the Appellant has furnished incorrect address stating that the owners of the land have consented for acquisition of 500 Acres of land. The learned Counsel further submitted that the proceedings of the meeting of the High Level Committee itself would show that since the applications for re-grant of land in question were pending before the competent authority, the question of acquiring the said land would not arise and the Appellant had to find out alternative land to be acquired and wherefore, withdrawal of the project is justified. The order passed by the learned single Judge that Respondents 3 to 5 should also be afforded opportunity is justified.
We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record including the original records, which are made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
The material on record would clearly show that the Appellant had given an application proposing the Project and the same was considered during the 10th High Level Committee Meeting held on 28.08.2007 in Subject No. 46. Subsequently, in the 13th High Level Committee Meeting held on 13.03.2008, the proposal of the Appellant - Company was further reviewed and it was noted that the land identified for the Project was earmarked as agricultural zone in the interim master plan of B.I.A.A.P.A., and there was no provision to establish the proposed activity as per the zoning regulations. Hence, the High Level Committee resolved to advice the project proponent - Appellant herein to identify a suitable alternate land for the project considering the zoning regulations of the Local Planning Authority/Town Planning Department prevailing in the area and the availability of infrastructure. Thereafter, in the 15th High Level Committee Meeting held on 21.08.2008, the said Committee approved the project of the Appellant - Company subject to approval from the Urban Development Department/B.I.A.A.P.A to further process the request of the Appellant - Company and accord necessary approval as per the law. Thereafter, the Government on the basis of the said recommendation made by the High Level Committee, passed an order on 18.11.2008 according approval to the project of the Appellant and the same was communicated to the appellant. It is clear from Annexure �G� to the writ petition dated 18.11.2008 that the Government, after referring to the proceedings of the various meetings of the High Level Committee as referred to above, has passed the said order. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.11.2008 reads as follows:
In the circumstances explained above. Government is pleased to accord approval to The proposal of NEC Real Estate Fvt, Ltd., to set up a Tourist Complex, Commercial Space, Financial Hub, R&D Facilities with Residential Condominium, Service Apartment And Medical City" in Chalamakunte Village, Chikkajala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, with an investment of Rs. 3660.00 crores with the following infrastructural facilities, incentive and concessions as approved in the 10th SHLCC meeting held on 28.08.2007:
KIADB to acquire and allot 500 acres of land on consent basis at different Sy. Nos. of Chalamanakunte Village, Chikkajala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Company shall bring consent from the lawful and owners for minimum 75% of the proposed area of the project before commencement of acquisition by KIADB.
KIADB to initiate the acquisition process and may settle the compensation to the legal owners in accordance with the law. As mentioned above if the rights are not passed on to the holders of inamland, KIADB may remit the amount to be determined by Revenue Department Government.
In the said order dated 18.31.2008, there is reference to the decision of the High Level Committee in its 15th meeting held on 21.08.2008, which reads as under:
To establish the project in 500 Acres of land at Chalamakunte Village, Chikkajala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, subject to approval from Urban Development Department/B.I.A.A.P.A., Urban Development Department/B.I.A.A.P.A. to further process the request of the company and accord necessary approvals as per law KIADB to approve plans etc only after clearness from the planning authority. Thereafter the project proponent will take up all development activities.
Therefore, it is clear that the order dated 18.11.2008 approving the project of the Appellant was subject to the above said conditions and only after the project was approved by B.I.A.A.P.A./Urban Development Authority and K.I.A.D.B., the Appellant could take up all the developmental activities. Thus, it is clear that the order dated 18.11.2008 was not unconditional approval of the proposal submitted by the Appellant and it was subject to the conditions as referred to above.
The material on record would further show that thereafter, the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 has been passed by the Government withdrawing its earlier order approving the project of the Appellant dated 18.11.2008. The said order dated 26.11.2008 is issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka by the same person, who had passed the order on 18.11.2008 and the preamble to the said order reads as follows:
Since there is some legal hurdles in acquisition of 500 Acres of land by KIADB and there is a case pending before the Land Tribunal on grant of occupancy rights, Hon''ble Chief Minister of Government of Karnataka has ordered to withdraw the Government Order issued on 18.11.2008 in favour of the Company.
The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant in this case is that since there is no power of review conferred upon the Government, the order according approval to the project of the Appellant dated 18.11.2008 could not be withdrawn by the subsequent order dated 26.11.2008. It is the contention of the first Respondent - Government that when the Government had granted conditional approval of the project of the Appellant herein, the same can be withdrawn in exercise of power u/s 21 of the General Clauses Act and the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court would also show that the State Government has power to exercise power of revoking and withdrawing the order u/s 21 of the General Clauses Act.
The decision of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in H.C. Suman and another Vs. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. New Delhi and others, , relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant to contend that the Government has no power to withdraw the order according approval to the project of the Appellant, would show that the Government has got power u/s 21 of the General Clauses Act. However, where an absolute power is vested with the person, the same cannot be rescinded to the detriment of person in whom the right is vested and bona fides of the Government. It is further held in the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai and Others, that the general power of rescindment is available to the State u/s 20 of the General Clauses Act and once the order approving an application for opening of a new School is granted, then the successful applicant acquires a right of legitimate expectation to have his application further considered under the Kerala Education Act. Similarly, the other decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant would show that the power of the Government to rescind the notifications and the order passed u/s 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the provisions of which are identical to the provisions of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, would enable the Government to withdraw the order till a right is vested with the person, who was conferred with the vested right. Section 21 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 reads as follows:
Section 21. Power To Make To Include Power To Add, To Amend, Vary Or Rescind Notifications, Orders, Rules Or Bye-Laws - Where, by any enactment, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add, to amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-law so issued.
Having regard to the contents of the above said provision, and the principles laid down in the judgements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the scope of power of the Government u/s 21 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, and the above said facts of the case, it is clear that what was approved by the Government by order dated 18.11.2008 is not the unconditional acceptance of the proposal of the Appellant and the order of approval dated 18.11.2008 itself was subject to the conditions mentioned above and no developmental activity could be undertaken by the Appellant till the plan was approved by B.I.A,A.P.A and K.I.A.D.B., and clearance was obtained from the planning authority. Therefore, it is not open to the Appellant to contend that it has acquired right of legitimate expectation and that it has invested and undertaken developmental activity by legitimate expectation that its project would be approved, when there is a specific prohibition in the order dated 18.11.2008 that no developmental activity shall be undertaken before the approval of plan by the B.I.A.A.P.A. and K.I.A.D.B., and clearance was obtained from the planning authority. Having regard to the fact that the project of the Appellant was approved subject to the conditions referred to above, it is clear that the power of the State Government to rescind the order or withdraw the order has to be sustained. However, the question is as to whether on the facts of the case, the State Government was justified in exercising the power u/s 21 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, that too without issuing any notice to the Appellant, to whom a conditional order of acceptance of proposal was granted, in view of the fact that withdrawal of the proposal would affect its civil rights. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the question of merits of the order of the Government dated 26.11.2008 withdrawing its earlier order according approval to the project of the Appellant dated 18.11.2008 in view of the order that is proposed to be passed by us.
In view of the fact that the power conferred u/s 21 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, could not be exercised by the Government without affording opportunity to the Appellant to substantiate its case by issuing notice regarding the proposed action to be taken against the Appellant, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the power of withdrawal of the order according approval to the project of the Appellant could not have been exercised though the State Government has got power in that behalf u/s 21 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, without issuing notice to the writ Petitioner. The said finding of the learned single Judge is well founded having regard to the above said facts of the case. The learned single Judge, having held that the order dated 26.11.2008 is in violation of the principles of natural justice in so far as it relates to withdrawal of the approval of the project of the Appellant herein dated 18.11.2008 without affording opportunity to the Appellant, was not justified in holding that it was unnecessary to quash the order dated 26.11.2009 and in directing that Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition dated 26.11.2008 itself can be treated as a show cause notice issued by the State High Level Clearance Committee to the Appellant asking it to show cause as to why the approval of its project accorded on 18.11.2008 should not be recalled or withdrawn and fresh order could be passed after considering the objections filed by the writ Petitioner - Appellant herein as also the land owners, who were directed to file impleading application. It is also to be noted at this stage that in the Special Leave Petitions (Civil Appeal No. 4070/2010 arising out of SLP(C) No. 21385/2009 and Civil Appeal No.4071/2010 arising out of SLP (C) No. 22394/2010) filed by Respondents 3 to 5 herein, who are the owners of the land, the Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the contention of the Respondents in the Special Leave Petitions that the Appellants therein - Respondents 3 to 5 herein had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the High Court, has observed at paras 12 and 13 of the judgment dated 04.05.2010 as follows:
Although, the issue relating to grant of occupancy right over the land comprised in survey Nos. 1 to 104 of Village Chalamakunte is yet to be decided by the competent authority, it cannot be said that the Appellants do not have the locus to be heard in the proceedings which may result in acquisition of the land. If ultimately the competent authority accepts the claim of the Appellants for grant of occupancy rights and in the meanwhile the land is utilized by Respondent No. 3, the determination made by the competent authority will become illusory for them.
The submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 that his client is prepared to pay market value of the land to the Appellants subject to their claim being finally adjudicated by the competent authority in the proceedings relating to grant of occupancy rights cannot be accepted because the learned Counsel for the Appellants emphasized that his client would like to contest the very approval of the project of Respondent Nc.3 and support the decision taken by the Government to withdraw the same.
Therefore, it is clear that Respondents 3 to 5 herein, should also now be heard while considering the objections that may be filed by the Appellant herein to the proposal of the Government. It may also be noted at this stage that the first Respondent - State has not filed any appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge treating the impugned order of the Government dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition), wherein the order 18.11.2008, has been withdrawn and impugned order is treated as a show cause notice issued by the State High Level Clearance Committee to the Appellant asking it to show cause as to why the approval of its project accorded on 18.11.2008 should not be recalled or withdrawn. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the first Respondent - State Government dated 26.11.2008 withdrawing its earlier order according approval to the project of the Appellant dated 18.11.2008 as per Annexure �A'' to the writ petition cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed with liberty to the Respondents 1 and 2 herein to take action in accordance with law, if they are so advised regarding the approval of the project of the Appellant herein, after issuing notice to the Appellant and Respondents 3 to 5 herein and after considering the objections filed thereto and to that extent, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be modified.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the learned single Judge that the order passed by the first Respondent - State Government dated 26.11.2008 is contrary to the principles of natural justice is justified. However, in modification of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15348/2008 dated 13.02.2009, it is ordered that the order of the first Respondent - State dated 26.11.2008 is quashed and the first Respondent - State is at liberty to take, appropriate action with regard to the project of the Appellant in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the Appellant and after issuing notice to Respondents 3 to 5 herein. The first Respondent - State shall pass orders strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order on the merits of the case.