IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1653 OF 2026 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S DATA STREAMS INC A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. LALITHA GOWDA, NO.29, 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, II STAGE, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE 560 024.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHESHADRI N S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD GANDHINAGAR, NEAR FREEDOM PARK, BANGALORE-

560 009 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND Digitally EXECUTIVE MEMBER. signed by 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CHAITHRA A KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT Location:

HIGH BOARD, GANDHINAGAR, NEAR FREEDOM PARK, COURT OF BANGALORE-560 009 KARNATAKA

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, GANDHINAGAR, NEAR FREEDOM PARK, BANGALORE-560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAN P SABARAD.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.KIADB/HO/ALLOT/8793/15216/2025-26 DATED 15.12.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-AH.DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURING PROCESS WHICH COMMENSURATE WITH THE DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE SUB-LESSEES.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KIADB/HO/ALLOT/8793/15216/2025-26 DATED 15.12.2025 AT ANNEXURE AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.PV THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order bearing No.KIADB/HO/Allot/18793/1532/2025-26 dated 16.02.2025 passed by first respondent as per Annexure-

"AH".

2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:

The petitioner asserts that it had applied to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, “KIADB”) during the period 2008–2010 seeking allotment of industrial land. Pursuant thereto, the respondent– authority allotted industrial plots bearing Nos.406 and 407, measuring in all 4,047 square metres, and issued possession certificates in favour of the petitioner. Consequent upon such allotment, a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 10.02.2015 came to be executed, stipulating, inter alia, that the petitioner shall implement the industrial project within the prescribed time, subject to conditions enumerated therein.

3. The records would further disclose that the respondent–authority, invoking its powers under Section 34-B(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, “the KIAD Act”), issued a notice alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the lease- cum-sale agreement, as evidenced at Annexure-“AA”. The said notice was followed by a detailed show-cause notice dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure-“AD”), calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why action should not be initiated. Thereafter, a further notice under Section 34-

B(3) of the KIAD Act was issued (Annexure-“AE”).

4. Upon affording an opportunity of hearing, the respondent–authority, by the impugned order, has exercised powers under Sections 34-B(3) and 34-B(4) of the KIAD Act and ordered cancellation of the allotment, directing resumption of the subject plots forthwith. The impugned order is founded on findings that the petitioner has committed fundamental breaches, namely, (i) failure to implement the project within the stipulated period, despite grant of two extensions, and (ii) unlawful induction of third parties, thereby creating impermissible third-party interests in the allotted land.

5. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order stands vitiated on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the authority has placed reliance on an internal report, which was neither furnished nor disclosed to the petitioner during the course of the enquiry, thereby depriving the petitioner of