IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act vests with the State, and the Karnataka Housing Board has the authority to determine site allotments, including auctioning corner sites.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

The petitioners in this petition have prayed this Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other order, direction or writ quashing the notification dated 03.09.2016 bearing No.KHB/LAQ/88/2008-09 issued by the respondent No.1 produced at Annexure-D insofar as condition No.2 is concerned and also sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot 40% share in commercial and corner sites also to the petitioners and other suitable order as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners in the petition that they are the owners of lands described in paragraph No.1 of the petition in different survey numbers and that there was a proposal for housing scheme by the Karnataka Housing Board (for short, ‘KHB’) and approval was also obtained from the KHB for purchase of 300 acres of land for the purpose of housing scheme.

As the KHB had issued notification in Kannada daily newspaper calling for applications for general allotment, the said notification was challenged by the petitioners herein and 5 others in W.P.Nos.109723-727/2015 and in W.P.Nos.109839-842/2015 before this Court on the ground that respondents in the said petitions did not keep up their promise of 60:40 joint venture and as the request of the petitioners were turned down, they filed the writ petitions. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 31.08.2016 as the respondent No.1 herein vide proceedings dated 19.10.2015 bearing No.459 agreed to allot 40% of the sites to the respective owners. The copy of the order is also produced at Annexure-A.

3. It is contended that the petitioner No.1 herein applied to the respondent No.1 to know as to which are the sites allotted to him as per joint venture, the respondent No.1 replied that totally 9 sites will be allotted to him and on verification from the layout map, the petitioner No.1 came to know that he is not allotted corner sites. Out of total extent of land taken under joint venture, the land losers are entitled for 40% of developed plot as their share in the layout. The respondents are projecting that they are giving only residential sites on one side which is remote even though the land of the petitioner is coming in the corner sites. The KHB is auctioning the corner sites to the public and petitioners are deprived of 40% share in the commercial or corner sites. Hence, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 made representation in terms of Annexures-B, B1, B2 and B3 to allot corner sites or commercial sites in the scheme of 60% x 40% and the respondent cannot say that the petitioners are entitled to only residential sites. It is also contended that by retaining all commercial sites for themselves, the KHB is not only cheating the land losers but acting contrary to the scheme. The respondent taking undue advantage of their position are allotting sites which are valueless and are denying the petitioners a share in the corner and commercial sites. The copy of symbolic allotment of sites is produced as Annexure-C.

4. It is also contended that respondent No.1 issued a notification vide Annexure-D denying corner sites and commercial sites to the petitioners vide condition No.2. It is also contended that respondent No.2 issued paper publication dated 09.09.2016 that the applicants will be allotted sites by drawing lottery on 16.09.2016 and on 17.09.2016 at Annexure–E.

5. It is contended that there are 100 residential sites and commercial sites in the lay out and the land losers are entitled to 40% share in all the sites irrespective of the nature of the sites. The respondent now cannot say that only residential site and not commercial or corner sites. Hence, it is contended that insofar as denying 40% site in commercial or corner sites as stipulated in condition No.2 of the notification, the petitioners having no other efficacious remedy, have approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

6. The counsel for the