SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
M/S. JDV Holdings Private Limited, Represented By The Authorised Representative Mr. Lavanya Jayadev, S/o. Hanumappa M. - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7218 of 2021 (GM - KIADB) C/W Writ Petition No.11660 of 2021 (GM - KIADB), Writ Petition No.16402 of 2021 (GM - KIADB)
Decided On : 25-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Senior Advocate A/W., MS. Sanjeevini P. Navadgi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., HCGP, Smt. Sukrutha R., Advocate, Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate General A/W. Sri B.B. Patil, Adv.

Petitioners cannot assert rights for land allotments when their claims are contingent on another party's pending applications, especially after such approvals have expired.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 - The petitioners sought allotments of land for industrial purposes but faced delays due to a pending case involving another entity. The approvals granted were for two years, and after that time, the requests remained unfulfilled. The court emphasized that the rights of the petitioners depended on the outcome of the other case. (Paras 5-11)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court held the petitions had no merit, as the petitioners had no superior rights while their applications remained inchoate. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, private limited companies, filed writ petitions for land allotment after receiving in-principle approvals, but faced delays due to another company's pending application. The approvals had expired without allotment being executed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners' rights remained unestablished and contingent on another case, which had been dismissed.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners had enforceable rights to land allotment despite their approvals having expired owing to a dependent case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioners could not demand allotments when their rights were dependent on another party's claims, emphasizing petitions with unfulfilled rights do not warrant judicial intervention.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners in all these cases seek a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 4th respondent/ Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) to issue letters of allotment for different measurements of land for setting up industries.

2. Since the issue in the lis is common, as noted hereinabove, though the petitioners are different, the matters are taken up together and considered by this common order.

3. Heard Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7218 of 2021; Sri Ajesh Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.11660 of 2021; Sri Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.16402 of 2021; Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.7218 of 2021 and W.P.No.11660 of 2021 and for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.16402 of 2021; Smt. Sukrutha R., leaned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.7218 of 2021 and W.P.No.11660 of 2021 and for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.16402 of 2021 and Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General along with Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.7218 of 2021 and W.P.No.11660 of 2021 and for respondent Nos.1 and 3 in W.P.No.16402 of 2021.

4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

Writ Petition No.7218 of 2021:

4.1 The petitioner in the subject petition is a private limited entity, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner intending to establish a unit for pre-cast slab warehousing in 15 acres of land in Chikkahallur Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District with a proposed investment of Rs.72/- crores for the said project and for generation of employment of nearly 335 persons, applies to the 3rd respondent, the Single Window Clearance Committee (‘the Committee’ for short) for approval of allotment of land. The application is submitted on 08-05-2019. The petitioner is said to have applied under the Board’s Single Unit Complex category. The project proposal is said to have been examined in the proceedings of 116th meeting of the Committee held on 15-06-2019. After clearance by the Committee, the petitioner submits certain representations before the 63rd Land Audit Committee regarding its proposed project and requested allotment of 20 acres of land to carry out the business in the said village. The averment in the petition is that, the petitioner was informed by the 4th respondent that the proposed land was situated in an area that was already allotted to another entity viz., M/s P.M.Infrastructure Private Limited. The further averment in the petition is that M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited had filed Writ Petition No.47952 of 2015 seeking a direction to allot 163 acres of land to carry out its project in which there is an interim order dated 07-11-2015 directing the respondents not to consider applications of other parties for the said area. The 4th respondent is said to have informed the petitioner that M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited has submitted an application online, wherein it had varied its request from 163 acres to 50 acres. Therefore, the petitioner has reason to believe that 113 acres is available for allotment. Representations then were submitted again and all the applications of the petitioner were dependent upon M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited’s case before this Court in the aforesaid petition. Since the said petition was also pending and no decision was taken qua 113 acres, which according to the petitioner M/s P.M. Infrastructure Private Limited had given up, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner has at any time been allotted any land, but it is wanting allotment.

Writ Petition No.11660 OF 2021

4.2 The petitioner in the subject petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top