Writ Petition No. 32950 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16096 WP No. 32950 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32950 OF 2017 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN 1.
Legal Reasoning
M/S GANESH INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM PLOT NO.427 BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALURU-575 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS 2.
Legal Reasoning
SRI N PRABHAKAR S/O SRI A NAGARATHINAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. SRI N PUGALENTHI S/O SRI A NAGARATHINAM SINCE DEAD BY LR’s 3(a) SMT.NIRMALA.P AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE SRI N PUGALENTHI 3(b) SRI. PAARI ATHITH N.P. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LATE SRI N PUGALENTHI 3(c) KUM. MAGIMAA.P. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O LATE SRI. N. PUGALENTHI, ALL ARE R/A NO. 6-19-873, CROSS COMPOUND BEHIND URWA MARKET URWA, MANGALORE-575006 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16096 WP No. 32950 of 2017 (BY SRI. GURU PRASAD.A., ADVOCATE) AND 1. 2. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY MULTISTORYED BUILDING BENGALURU KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NO.49,4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) ZONAL OFFICE BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALORE-575 011 (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) …. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. IADB/ALLOT/MNG/BKP/436-A/1459/2016-17, DATED 16.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 UNDER SECTION 34-B4 OF KIAD ACT 1966 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16096 WP No. 32950 of 2017 CAV ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; i. ii. i. ii. iii. iv. v. Quash the impugned notice dated 16.12.2016 issued by respondent No.3 under sec. 34-B4 of KIAD Act 1966 in respect of the petition schedule property at Annexure-A. quash the notification dated 6.6.2017 issued and published by respondent No.2 in respect of the petition schedule property at Annexure-B. Amended prayer: the Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, by quashing bearing impugned No.IADB/Allot/MNG/BKP/436-A/1459/2016-17 dated 16.12.2016 issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 34-B4 of KIAD Act 1966 in respect of the petition schedule property. notice Issue a writ of certiorari or any writ, by quashing the Notification No.IADB/H.O/GM-A-01/2017-18, dated 6.6.2017 issued and published by the Respondent No.2 in respect of the petition schedule property. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, by quashing the impugned order dated 2.12.2016, bearing No.KIADB/HO/ALLOT/B-432/284/2016-17, passed the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, KIADB, Bengaluru. Grant the cost of this Petition to the Petitioners. Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16096 WP No. 32950 of 2017 2. Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm of which petitioners No.2 and 3 were partners. Petitioner No.3 having expired during the pendency of the proceedings, his legal heirs have been brought on record. Petitioner No.1 had been allotted plot No.436-A in Sy.No.9 Baikampady Industrial Area measuring 1160 square meters, on 23.8.2006, with a possession certificate being issued on 28.8.2006. The petitioner claims to have invested a sum of Rs.7,25,052/- in the said project. The allotment having been cancelled vide Annexure-A in pursuance of which the notification at Annexure-B has been issued. It is in that background, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The submission of Sri.Guruprasada., learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 3.1 The petitioners though had received the notice under Section 34 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, the petitioner could not place all the facts for consideration by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16096 WP No. 32950 of 2017 respondents as regards the investment made as regards a landslide which had occurred, nor could the necessary documents be placed on record to indicate the works which had been carried out by the petitioner. 3.2 A memo along with certain photographs have been filed. A perusal of the said photographs would indicate that there was some kind of construction which had been put up, as also construction material was available at site. 4. If that be so, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner would have to be given one more opportunity to place all those details and documents including the investment made with supporting documents before the respondents for consideration. As such, I pass the following;
Decision
ORDER i. ii. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned notice dated 16.12.2016 issued respondent No.3 at Annexure-A and by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16096 WP No. 32950 of 2017 issued dated 6.6.2017 and notification published by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B are quashed as also impugned notice bearing No.IADB/Allot/MNG/BKP/436-A/1459/ 2016-17 dated 16.12.2016 issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 34-B4 of KIAD Act 1966 in respect of the petition schedule property and No.IADB/H.O/GM-A-01/2017-18, Notification dated 6.6.2017 issued and published by the Respondent No.2 in respect of the petition schedule property and impugned order dated 2.12.2016, bearing No.KIADB/HO/ ALLOT/B- 432/284/2016-17, passed the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, KIADB, Bengaluru are hereby quashed. vi. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish a further reply along with all supporting documents which shall be so submitted to respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from today i.e., on or before the 24.4.2025. If such a reply and documents are submitted by 24.4.2025, Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter, if necessary, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, carry a joint inspection of the property, etc. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1