JUDGMENT :

B. Veerappa, J.

1. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.12.2016 in No. 19785/14040/16-17 passed by the first respondent as per Annexure "F" resuming the Site No. 206-A situated at II Phase, Harohalli Industrial Area.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is engaging in manufacture of automobile components with an intention to setup an Industrial Unit for the manufacture of automobile components in Bengaluru. He applied for allotment of land to the first respondent on 23.04.2011, the first respondent after considering the application of the petitioner has allotted 4004 square meters of land in Plot No. 206-A, Phase-II, Harohalli Industrial Area on 29.07.2011. On 23.02.2012, the first respondent issued "Confirmatory Letter of Allotment" after receipt of Rs. 60 Lakhs from the petitioner as tentative costs. Thereafter, on 09.04.2012, the first respondent handed over the allotted land to the possession of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 18.07.2012, the first respondent executed a registered lease- cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioner.

4. The things stood thus, the first respondent issued a notice dated 21.07.2016 under Section 34(B)(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act for short) to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said notice by his reply dated 20.08.2016 and requested to grant six months time to implement the project. The first respondent without considering the reply and without following the procedure as contemplated has cancelled the allotment of land by passing an impugned order dated 21.12.2016. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that after issuing a notice to the petitioner under Section 34B(1) of KIAD Act, the petitioner has attended the hearing fixed by the authorities on 2.12.2016 and requested time to implement the project. After considering the entire material on record, the first respondent passed orders strictly in accordance with law and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.

7. Sri K.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the first respondent resuming the land allotted to the petitioner is erroneous and contrary to the material on record cannot be sustained. He would further contend that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is an utter violation of the principles of natural justice. No show cause notice has been issued before passing the impugned order or given an opportunity of being heard the petitioner. He further contended that, the first respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 34B(2) of KIAD Act. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. He would further contended that in the order sheet produced by the learned counsel for the respondents as per Annexure "R5" clearly depicts that, the case was called on 21.10.2016 and recorded as final orders could not be made ready and post the matter for hearing on 11.11.2016. On 11.11.2016, the case was not at all called; instead, the case was called on 2.12.2016. Therefore, it clearly indicates that the order sheet procedure adopted by the respondents is against the provisions of KIAD Act and in utter violation of principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained. There is no compliance of the provision as contemplated under Section 34B(2) of the KIAD Act. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.

8. Per contra, Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - KIADB, while reiterating the statement of objections sought to justify the impugned order and vehemently contended that the Board issued no