Dismissed

M/S Smart Infosoft and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2021WA/87/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The warrant appeal regarding a land allotment dispute was dismissed. The court upheld the Single Judge's order, noting that the appellant was confined to 6 acres when 7.5 were allotted due to non-availability and that the denotification notification remained unchallenged, though a liberty to claim excess payment refund was granted below.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Smart Infosoft and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.87/2020 (GM-KIADB)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

M/S SMART INFOSOFT AND SERVICES PVT LTD NO.3, 4^TH FLOOR, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. ASHWIN SANCHETI

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI.S.V.BHAT, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD II FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA BUILDING, 14/2A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶15

2 . THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONAL OFFICE, METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, KRS ROAD, NEAR VIKRANT TYRES, MYSORE-560016.

¶16

3 . THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND ENGINEERING ENGINEER

¶17

¶18

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MYSORE ZONE, KRS ROAD, METAGALLI, MYSORE-560016.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(R2 AND R3 SERVED)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED IN WA NO.40838/2013 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant-Company has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.40838/2013 (M/s.Smart Infosoft & Services Pvt. Ltd., v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and others).

¶25

The facts of the case reveal that an Allotment letter was issued by the Land Audit Committee, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), Mysore on 03.05.2007 allotting 7.5 acres of land in Plot No.8 of Hebbal II Phase Industrial Area, Mysore, in favour of the appellant for manufacture of 'Software Development Centre'. However, he was placed in possession of only 06 acres of land vide letter dated 07.02.2009 and a

¶26

¶27

Possession Certificate was also granted, which is also on record dated 14.10.2008 (Annexure-J).

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was allotted 7.5 acres of land, only 06 acres have been allotted. The record further reveals that the respondents have taken a decision only on 29.01.2007 to denotify the remaining lands from land acquisition and whatever the lands was available has been allotted to the present appellant i.e., 06 acres of land. The Notification dated 29.01.2007 was not challenged before any Forum and in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the matter with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available under the law.

¶29

In the considered opinion of this Court as the land was not available, the same has not been allotted to the appellant and he was confined only to 06 acres of land. The learned Single Judge was justified in disposing of the petition as the Notification dated 29.01.2007 was not challenged. However, a liberty has been granted to take recourse to such remedy as may be available in law by the learned Single Judge and therefore this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

¶31

The appellant shall certainly be free to take recourse available under the law for refund of excess amount paid by him along with interest. Resultantly, the appeal is

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

Pending IAs., if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

M/S Smart Infosoft and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Smart Infosoft and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eranna H Vs Uco Bank

India Awake for Transparency Vs Mr Azim Hasham Premji

V Nandan Kamath Vs Muralinath Gupta

Dr H.R.Nanjundappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs State of Karnataka