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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39272

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M/S KAMALALAYAA REAL ESTATES LLP – Appellant
Versus
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD – Respondent
WP 279 / 2024



Reserved on : 09-01-2024 Pronounced on : 12-01-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.279 OF 2024 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

M/S. KAMALALAYAA REAL ESTATES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 166, NEW MLA AND MP COLONY, ROAD NO. 10C JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 033.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. VENKAT RANJIT PATIBANDLA ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, AG A/W., SRI. ASHOK N.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER DECLARING THAT CONDITION NO. 4 IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER BEARING NO. KIADB/HO/ALLOT/SECY-1/22906/1262/ 2020-21 DATED 05/06/2020 ISSUED BY R1 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-D IS ULTRA VIRES THE KIAB ACT, 1966 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CONDITION NO. 4.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.01.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of declaration to declare Condition No.4 in the allotment letter issued by the 1st respondent/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘the Board’ for short) as ultra vires the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘the Act’ for short) and has sought quashment of impugned notice issued to the petitioner seeking to cancel the allotment.

2. The facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be a limited liability partnership firm incorporated under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and is in the business of constructing buildings and establishing software parks. The petitioner desirous of establishment of a software park in the lands coming under the precincts of the Board, applies for allotment of 10 acres of land in Plot No.25-P1 of IT Sector, Hi Tech Defence and Aerospace Park, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the subject property). The State Level Single Window Clearance Committee (‘the Committee’ for short) in terms of its proceedings dated 24-03-2020 recommends allotment of subject property in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the recommendation for allotment, a communication is made by the Board to the petitioner informing it about the said allotment and directing payment of requisite initial deposit towards the allotment. The petitioner then makes payment of 30% of the amount and earnest money deposit in a total sum of `8.40 crores to the Board. On 01-06-2020 a Government order is issued confirming the said allotment and the allotment is confirmed on 05-06-2020 by the Board as well.

3. When things stood thus, the petitioner submits a representation on 09-06-2020 seeking 5 acres of additional land to the Committee. The Committee in terms of its proceedings dated 19-09-2020 accepts the representation of the petitioner and recommends allotment of 3 acres. Further payment is made by the petitioner towards the said allotment at `1,68,10,000/-. Close to three years thereafter, the petitioner receives a cancellation notice on 28-11-2023 from the 1st respondent/Board. The petitioner then represents against the said cancellation on 07-12-2023. That having not been acceded to, it has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The matter was heard and reserved on 09-01-2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner moved a memo for ‘being spoken to’ on the score that he was not afforded an opportunity

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top