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
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



Petitioners cannot assert rights for land allotments when their claims are contingent on another party's pending applications, especially after such approvals have expired.
The court upheld the resumption of industrial land due to the failure of the allottee to operate business while recognizing the need for orderly reallocation based on seniority among competing claima....
A concluded contract requires mutual agreement on essential terms, including payment and delivery, without which claims to the land become unenforceable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.