Point of Law: Courts have to individualise justice by moulding the relief and for that purpose, they can read down the instruments, under which rights are claimed consistent with the law under which they are issued, disregarding their broad language & text and gratuitous grant.

JUDGMENT :

This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the order dated 17.07.2020 entered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.110414/2019 (LA-UDA) whereby the appellant and the State Government “are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and implement resolution dated 17.12.2012 in accordance with law”. A period of three months has also been prescribed for the compliance of this direction; the said resolution whose implementation is mandamussed provided for allotment of land to the writ petitioner i.e., the respondent herein.

2. After service of notice, the writ petitioner being the opponent has entered appearance through his counsel; the respondent – State Government & its officials are represented by the learned Government Advocate, who supported the case of appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that: the writ petition has been disposed off with no opportunity of filing objections thereto; there are a few resolutions which provide for allotment of land to the writ petitioner, is true; however, the land sought to be allotted to the writ petitioner by these resolutions is far in excess of his entitlement under the Rules; without ascertaining prima facie regularity & legality of these resolutions, extraordinary jurisdiction constitutionally vested could not have been exercised in favour of the writ petitioner; petitioner although is a land loser, he has been awarded compensation; therefore it is not a case of allotment of land in lieu of compensation; in any circumstance no mandamus can be issued to enforce the resolution that are made in violation law; so arguing he seeks allowing of the writ appeal; learned Government Advocate supports the case of the appellant.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anant Mandagi appearing for the writ petitioner contends that his client is admittedly a project displaced person, having lost his land in acquisition; he has received the compensation, is true; however it has nothing to do with his entitlement to allotment of a site for industrial purpose; several such allotments are made to project displaced persons; there are three resolutions consciously passed by the appellant for allotment of land to him; appellant being the author of subject resolutions cannot be heard to say that these resolutions are contrary to law; this appeal lacks bonafide since it is preferred after the issuance of notice in the contempt proceedings; the appellant being a statutory authority has allotted lands to several persons similarly circumstanced & only the petitioner is discriminated against; the impugned order cannot be faultered on the grounds urged in the appeal; so contending he seeks dismissal of the same.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers; we have looked into a plethora of rulings cited at the Bar; however, we have not mentioned about them since they discuss the principles of law relating to allotment of public property, doctrine of promissory estoppel, suppression of material fact & discretionary grant of writ remedy, which are now well settled; we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

a) Appellant is constituted as a statutory authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Improvements Board Act, 1976; it has statutory power to acquire and dispose of property under the Act and Rules made thereunder, is not in dispute; the Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of Industrial Sites) Rules, 2004 are promulgated under Section 69 of the Act; they do not govern allotment of sites other than industrial sites; this is evident from the very title of these Rules; this apart, the provisions of Rule 2 define ‘industrial activity’, ‘industrial estate’, ‘industrial site or area’; Section 2(l) which defines ‘project affected entrepreneur’ itself employees the term ‘industrial activity’; the Preamble, text & context of these Rules make it abundantly c