Latest news with #KIADAct
The Hindu
08-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Local authority has no power to collect taxes from establishments in industrial areas under KIADB, says Karnataka High Court
The High Court of Karnataka has said gram panchayats have no power in law to levy or collect taxes from industrial establishments located within the industrial areas notified and developed by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act, 1966. 'The power to regulate and approve development activities, including the right to levy and collect tax within such industrial estates, vests exclusively with the KIADB. The gram panchayat cannot usurp such authority in the absence of a specific statutory conferment,' the court said. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order while allowing the petitions filed by Kalpatharu Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and several other industrial establishments situated in Sompura industrial area of Nelamangala near Bengaluru. The petitioners had questioned the notices issued by the Sompura Grama Panchayat asking them to pay property tax. Jurisdiction issue The court said the local authorities get jurisdiction over industrial areas only when the government issues a notification under Section 37 of the KIAD Act transferring the industrial areas from the control of the KIADB to the local authorities concerned. 'Until such notification is issued, the jurisdiction of the KIADB remains intact and exclusive. Further, Section 47 of the KIAD Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over any other law that is inconsistent with its provisions. The statutory scheme therefore leaves no room for implied or incidental exercise of jurisdiction by any local authority, including gram panchayats,' the court said, while setting aside notices issued by the gram panchayat to the industrial establishments.
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Gram panchayats lack authority to levy property tax on Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board industrial estates: High court
Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has ruled that gram panchayats have no authority or jurisdiction to demand property tax from industrial establishments set up in industrial areas or estates of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). In his order, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said that only in instances where the industrial areas or estates have been withdrawn from KIADB's jurisdiction do gram panchayats gain jurisdiction. Industries set up in Tumakuru city, Sompura, Thyamagondlu, and Dabaspet KIADB industrial areas (all Bengaluru) challenged the demand notices for payment of property tax issued by their respective gram panchayats. The petitioners asserted that Section 37 of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act stipulates that the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act or Panchayat Raj Act can apply to an industrial area only upon its withdrawal from the purview of KIADB by way of an express notification issued by the state govt. According to them, in their cases, no such notification was issued. The KIADB also supported the petitioners. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru On the other hand, gram panchayats submitted that they are the local body providing basic civic amenities and infrastructure to industrial plots. Therefore, they are authorised under Schedule-IV to Panchayat Raj Act to levy property tax on industrial establishments. Justice Magadum said none of the documents placed on record confer any statutory authority on the panchayat to collect taxes in respect of industrial establishments located within areas notified and developed by the KIADB under the provisions of the KIAD Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Xu hướng tủ lạnh 2025: Chọn lựa thông minh với giá cả hợp lý LocalPlan Tìm Ngay Undo Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest such power in the gram panchayat in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing. "Consequently, the power to regulate and approve development activities, including the right to levy and collect tax within such industrial estates, vests exclusively with KIADB. The gram panchayat cannot usurp such authority in the absence of a specific statutory conferment," the court said, allowing the petitions.
The Hindu
07-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
BMIC project: Karnataka High Court quashes acquisition of several lands, as awards weren't passed even 23 years after notifying acquisition
In a major victory for many landowners, the High Court of Karnataka has set aside acquisition of several acres for the controversial Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project as the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) had failed to pass awards for these lands even some 23 years after issuing final notifications. Justice R. Devdas passed the order on July 4 while allowing a batch of petitions, filed between 2014 and 2024, by P. Manjunatha Reddy and other landowners. The petitioner-landowners contended that the acquisition process could not be sustained as the KIADB's special land acquisition officer (SLAO) had failed to pass awards till date even though the preliminary notifications of acquisition under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 were issued between 1998 and 2009, and the final notifications, under Section 28(4) of the Act, were issued between 2003 and 2009. Justice Devdas relied on a verdict passed in 2023 by a Division Bench of the High Court in KIADB vs M. Shakunthalamma's case in which it had set aside an acquired land, which too was notified for the BMIC project, on the ground that no award was passed even after a lapse of 11 years since issuance of the final notification. The court also noted that the apex court had confirmed the Division Bench's judgment in the Shakunthalamma case. In the present case, the court noted that over 23 years had lapsed since the notifications for acquisition were issued between 1998 and 2009, and the awards had not been passed by the SLAO till today. 'Having regard to the plight of the landowners who are deprived of the use and occupation of lands and they losing their livelihood, this court has no other option, than to follow the judgment of the Division Bench in M. Shakunthalamma's case,' the court observed. Pointing out that petitioner-landowners had contended that their lands were not part of the BMIC project and no part of their lands had been utilised by the KIADB or the project proponent — Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises — for the formation of interchanges, toll plazas, peripheral road or link road, which were part of the project, the court noted that this claim of the petitioners were not controverted by the KIADB and others. Even though the courts had earlier upheld the legality of the preliminary and final notifications for acquiring these lands, the court said that not passing award was a fresh cause of action to challenge the validity of land acquisition proceedings. 'Pass awards afresh based on 2019 market value of lands' In a boon for some persons who lost their lands to the BMIC project, the High Court of Karnataka directed the KIADB to pass awards afresh for some of the lands, notified way back in 2003, for which the KIADB passed awards between 2019 and 2024 based on the land values between 2003 and 2011. Justice Devdas passed the order while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by A. Abdul Rehman Khan and others, whose lands were acquired for the project. The court passed the order while citing Supreme Court's January 2025 verdict in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others vs Government of Karnataka, in which the apex court directed the KIADB to pass an award fresh by taking the market value of the land as existed in 2019. In Bernard's case, the land was acquired in 2003 and utilised for the project sans passing award. However, the KIADB passed the award in 2019 relying on the 2011 market value of that land. Rejecting the pleas against extending the benefit of Bernard's case verdict to the petitioners, the High Court said that 'there cannot be discrimination in the matter of determination and award of compensation'.
