Allotment rates determined by a public land development authority are prospective in nature; an allottee cannot claim the benefit of a subsequent price reduction to an existing, completed contract, nor can they claim discrimination when the allegedly lower rates were granted to others based on distinct, objective criteria like bulk allotment.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO EXERCISE ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/05/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.14837/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.14837/2022 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. The present intra Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner calling in question the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.14837/2022 (GM-KIADB) [impugned order] whereunder, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said petition was filed impugning an order/communication dated 18.03.2022 rejecting the representation made by the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that consequent to an application made by the appellant to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [KIADB] it was issued with an allotment letter dated 30.03.2016 allotting 2 acres of land in plot Nos.47 and 48 of Jakkasandra Industrial Area, Kolar, [subject land] for setting up of "cold forged and machined components for automobile and aerospace industries" subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure-A to the said letter. The said allotment was a lease for a period of 99 years. The lease was liable to be cancelled, in case, the subject land was not utilized within a period of three years. The premium payable for allotment of the subject land was fixed at `138 lakhs per acre. 30% of the tentative premium of the land was to be paid on or before 29.04.2016 and the balance tentative premium of `1,93,20,000.00 was to be paid on or before 29.06.2016. The confirmatory letter of agreement dated 16.04.2016 was issued by KIADB upon payment of `2,76,00,000/- by the appellant being the entire premium cost of the subject land.

3. The appellant had set up the industry and started its commercial production on 08.11.2016 and complied with all the conditions imposed by KIADB. Subsequently, Lease Deed dated 03.05.2016 was executed granting lease of the subject property for a period of 99 years, which was registered on 11.05.2016. Pursuant to the Government order dated 11.07.2017, the grant of lease for a period of 99 years for allotment of land upto 2 acres was modified as granting the same on a lease-cum-sale basis, the lease period being 10 years. Accordingly, a Rectification Deed dated 22.11.2018 was executed rectifying the lease deed dated 03.05.2016.

4. It was claimed by the appellant that it had set up the industry in the border areas of Karnataka by investing high capital and it was not in a position to achieve break even. The appellant claimed to have suffered the loss of `1,19,09,468/- for the financial year 2017-18 and loss of `67,96,622/- for the financial year 2018-19. It was further contended by the appellant that two other allottees namely, M/s Deerfield Logistics Pvt.Ltd., [Deerfield] and M/s. A.S.Global Logistics and Warehousing Services Pvt.Ltd., [A.S.Global] had been allotted land in the same industrial area at `88 lakhs per acre, which benefit ought to be extended to the appellant. Hence, the appellant sought for revision of the cost from `138 lakhs per acre to `88 lakhs per acre and refund of a sum of `1,00,00,000/- (Rupees O