The terms of a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement prevail over provisions allowing for revocation of allotments under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Regulations.

ORDER

Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.B.B.Patil., learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person.

2. The brief facts are these:

The petitioner M/s.Pushpagiri Ware House, Hassan being an entrepreneur, in order to establish a business in Warehousing (Service Activity) approached the Board who had invited applications for the allotment, registration, and conferring right, title, interest, ownership and possession in respect of HASSAN GROWTH CENTRE INDUSTRIAL AREA. The petitioner made an application to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). The application submitted by the petitioner was scrutinized by the Committee of the Board. The application of the petitioner was accepted and an allotment letter was issued and allotted land by conferring the right, title, interest and ownership of the plot to the petitioner on 06.06.2013. It is said that the Industrial Layout was formed by the Board and identified the Industrial Sites together with the plot allotted to the petitioner. The entire layout was identified and Developed Special Economic Zone.

The petitioner paid the requisite amount to the Board. On 03.07.2013 a Lease-cum-sale agreement was executed by the respondent inducting the petitioner in physical possession of the land in question. It is averred that the petitioner has been conferred with right, title, interest, ownership, and possession in terms of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement. Thus, the petitioner is in settled possession of the land in question. The petitioner submitted a plan for approval on 09.07.2013 and the plan is not approved by the Board.

As things stood thus, certain persons namely, N.C.Devarajegowda and Smt.Ningamma purported to have filed an anonymous complaint making certain false allegations and hence the respondent Authority passed an interim restraint order on 29.07.2013 and revoked the allotment.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy, has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.

4. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the Annexure with utmost care.

The main argument in the present case has been centered around the illegal and arbitrary exercise of power by Authority in cancelling the allotment and application of Regulation 12 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Regulations.

Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his argument vehemently contended that the Regulation 12 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He argued by saying that the allotment is made to the petitioner together with the execution of the registered lease cum-sale agreement and the petitioner has not flouted any terms and conditions of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement. Hence, the restraint order revoking the allotment is illegal and unsustainable in law.

Sri.B.B.Patil., learned counsel for the respondents justified the action of the Board. Learned counsel strenuously urged that the respondent Authority revoked the allotment as contemplated under Regulation 12 of the Regulations governing the disposal of Lands by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 1969. He contended that Regulation will prevail over the conditions under the Lease-cum-sale deed.

Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The short and simple point arises for my consideration:

Is the Authority justified in revoking the allotment placing reliance on Regulation 12 of the Regulations governing the disposal of Lands by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 1969?

The facts have been suff