ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ i) Issue a writ or order or declaration writ of Certiorari or any other quashing the impugned Order dated: 16.03.2026 bearing No. KIAD/HO/Allot./secy/AS-143/19927/25-26 as per Annexure-A passed by the Respondent KIADB under Section 34-B(3) and (4) of the KIAD Act, 1966, and

ii) ISSUE a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Order, or Direction, directing the Respondent KIADB to fulfill its obligations under the Lease Cum Sale Agreement dated: 07.06.2007 as per Annexure-D and grant permission to by sanctioning the Plan Sanction submitted for approval on 05.12.2025 as per Annexure-T; and

iii) ISSUE a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing the Respondent KIADB to fulfill its obligations under the Lease Cum Sale Agreement dated: 07.06.2007 as per Annexure-D and grant permission by deciding on the Application for sub lease submitted for an extent of 18 Acres in favour of Nuziveedu Seeds Limited and M/s. Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd., for approval on 01.06.2021 and 02.06.2025 as per Annexure-Z and AA;

iv) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the respondent – KIADB and learned counsel for the intervening applicant in I.A.No.1/2026 as well as learned Senior counsel for the intervening applicant in I.A.No.2/2026 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent – KIADB has proceeded to pass the impugned Resumption order purporting to resume the land allotted by the respondent – KIADB in favour of the petitioner primarily on two grounds viz., firstly that the petitioner having obtained permission to sub-lease the subject land had in turn executed the agreement to sell in favour of M/s.LAM Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., and secondly, that despite not obtaining permission to sub-lease the land from the KIADB, petitioner had sublet the portions of subject land in favour of third parties viz., M/s.Nuziveedu Seed Pvt. Ltd., and Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd. In this context, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Affidavit filed by the petitioner of even date in order to point out that the very basis for the apprehension culminating in the impugned resumption order issued / passed by the KIADB has been explained and allayed by the petitioner as can be seen from the contents of the Affidavit. It is therefore submitted that having regard to the Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the very basis for passing the impugned order would not survive for consideration any longer and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent – KIADB submits that in the light of the Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the respondent – KIADB to take recourse to such legal action against the petitioner, if the occasion so arises.

5. Learned Senior counsel and learned counsel for the intervening applicants in I.A.No.1/2026 and I.A.No.2/2026 submit that there are several other violations committed by the petitioner and the following disputes are pending between the petitioner, respondent – KIADB and the intervening applicants as hereunder:-

(i) COM.OS.No.234/2020

(ii) W.P.No.16287/2022

(iii) W.A.No.1772/2024

(iv) W.A.No.1797/2024

(v) W.A.No.654/2026

(vi) W.A.No.678/2026

6. By way of reply, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the present petition deserves to be disposed of in pursuance of the Affidavit filed by the petitioner, the Intervening applications may also be disposed of relegatin