SUSHEELAMMA, W/O HANUMANTHRAO DESHPANDE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND KARNATAKA STATE TEXTILES (IN LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of together as they arise under similar circumstances.

(2.) IN writ petition 14758/2006 the petitioners' case is as follows: The petitioners are joint owners of land in survey No. 123 and 124 bearing CTS No. 470 ward No. 3 measuring about 5 acres 37 guntas at Mariyan Timmasagara, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. These lands were leased to M/s Southern Maratha Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, Hubli. The said lease -hold rights were said to have been sold in favour of M/s New Gujarat Cotton Mills Limited, Calcutta in the year 1958. And in the year 1959 the said Company had, in turn, sold the lease -hold rights in favour of the Karnataka Co -operative Textile Mills Limited, Dharwad, a Co -operative Society; In the year 1970 the lands were sub -leased in favour of M/s G. Mahadevappa and Sons, a firm. In the year 1978, the mills closed down. In the year 1986 the State Government of Karnataka, in order to revive the Mills, enacted the Karnataka Co -operative Textile Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1986 (Act No. 29 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the Act', for brevity) especially with that object. The Government thus took over the lease -hold rights alongwith the management of the mills in terms of a Notification dated issued under Section 8(1) of the said Act. However, inspite of the State Government's intervention, the company which was then incorporated under the Companies Act, became a sick unit and it was held by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction as an economically unviable unit under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. M/s Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development Corporation, a State Financial Corporation, was appointed as the selling agent to sell the assets of the company and the company was sought to be wound -up. A company petition was initiated before the Company Court in Company petition 149/1998. The same was allowed and the Company was ordered to be wound -up by an order dated. The Official Liquidator thus had the custody of the properties of the company. Pursuant to the direction issued to Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development Corporation, by the Government of Karnataka - it had offered the assets of the company for sale, including the land belonging to the petitioners, of which the company had acquired only the lease -hold rights. The petitioners had thus challenged the action by way of a writ petition in WP 4590/1999. The petition was allowed, after contest, by an order dated. 11.1.2001. This was affirmed in appeals, preferred by the State. The petitioners had approached the Company Court and filed an application in CA 762/2003 in Company Petition 149/1998, seeking recovery of possession of the leased land. By an order dated 27.10.2005, the application was allowed with a direction to put the petitioners in possession of the land. The petitioners were also allowed to purchase the debris and machinery on the land for a total sum of Rs. 14.42 lakh. A Sale Certificate was issued to the petitioners in this regard. In this background, however, the Stale has enacted the Karnataka Cooperative Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) (Amendment) Act, 2004 (Act 20/2005) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2005 Act' for brevity). The said Act envisages the acquisition of lands, held on lease for the purposes of the textile mills, with retrospective effect, from the dale of the Parent Act. It is this which is under challenge.

(3.) THE petitioners are the joint owners of the properly in survey No. 16,17,19B bearing CTS No. 99 measuring 14 acres 28 guntas of Mariyan Timmasagara, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. These lands had been taken on lease for the very textile mills referred to in WP 14758/2006 and the lease -hold rights have been similarly transferred - since the mills and appurtenant lands have been treated as a composite unit at all times. The petitioners are similarly aggrieved by the Act. These petitioners are claiming recovery of possession of the lands.