IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2024 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD #49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER

2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR Digitally THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA signed by DEVELOPMENT BOARD AMBIKA H B NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR Location: EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN High Court of RACE COURSE ROAD Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S MALEMAPATI INDUSTRIES NO.23, 5^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS 'B' BLOCK, VINAYAKANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR JAGANNADHARAO M

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDIA BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (R-1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;

BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.2921/2016 (GM- KIADB) ALLOWING THE PETITION OF RESPONDENT NO.1 BY DIRECTING THE APPELLANTS TO REFUND A SUM OF RS.4,90,000/- WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER, FAILING WHICH IS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST @ 12 % PER ANNUM.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application – I.A.No.1/2024, the same is allowed and the delay of

249 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2921/2016 (GM-KIADB) [impugned order]. Respondent No.1 had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying as under:

"a. Declare that the respondents have no right to change the mode of allotment from Lease-cum-Sale for a period of 10 years to a Lease for a period of 99 years after the allotment is made and b. Consequently, Quash the Government Order bearing No.CI 511 SPQ 2013, dated 7.8.2014 [Annexure B] and Quash the order dated 21.12.2015 bearing No.IADB/HO/Allot/AS/20233/824 [Annexure D]. c. Direct the respondents to abide by the terms of the Allotment letter dated 5.7.2013 in so far as it relates to the allotment by Lease cum Sale Basis for a period of 10 years.

d. Restrain the respondents from demanding or collecting the balance sums from the petitioner until all the amenities that is required to establish an area as an Industrial Area are provided."

3. During the course of the said proceedings, the respondent had surrendered its allotment and sought refund of the amounts paid to appellant No.1 [KIADB]. Accordingly, the prayers made in the writ petition were amended and the following additional prayer was sought:

"da) Declare that the respondents cannot withhold a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- while refunding the sum paid by the petitioner and direct the respondents to refund the said sum of Rs.4,90,500/- to the petitioner with interest at 18% p.a."

4. The additional prayer sought was allowed. The present appeal is confined to the direction issued in the impugned order for the return of the amount paid by respondent No.1 on surrender of the allotment. KIADB claims that it is entitled to forfeit a part of the said amount in terms of the allotment letter issued to the respondent. In view of the above, the only question that remains to be examined by this Court is whether the impugned order can be faulted on the ground that it directs refund of the full amount paid by respondent No.1, incl