Disposed

Sri. Govindaraju.R v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2023WP/17221/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought allotment of marginal land for his property. Court disposed of writ petition by directing respondents to consider representations within two months and restrain allotment to others during that period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representations within two months and restrain allotment to third parties in the interim.

Sri. Govindaraju.R Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34183 WP No. 17221 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.17221 OF 2023 (GM-KIADB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI GOVINDARAJU .R S/O. LATE RANGASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE ‘RAJU TRADING COMPANY’ AT NO.76 & 88, 14^TH CROSS, 4^TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU – 560 058 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, #49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, ‘EAST WING’, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

(BY SRI MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO ALLOT TO THE PETITIONER THE MARGINAL LAND MEASURING 218 SQUARE METERS ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY IN THE MARGINAL LAND FACING TO

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34183 WP No. 17221 of 2023

¶14

14^TH CROSS ROAD IN THE PEENYA IV PHASE INDUSTRIAL AREA SITUATED IN SY.NO.PART OF 76 AND 88 WITHIN THE VILLAGE LIMITS OF NALLAKADARANAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AS PER THE PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATIONS DATED 17.02.2012, 17.09.2021 AND 27.01.2022 AT ANNEXURE-B, E AND F.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation at Annexures – B, E and F.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶19

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

The petitioner is aggrieved by the nonconsideration of the representation of the petitioner for allotment of the marginal land measuring 218 sq.mts. abutting to the eastern side of the property in Sy.Nos.76 and 88 allotted in his favour by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (“KIADB”).

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34183 WP No. 17221 of 2023

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶23

that, at present, the marginal land sought by the petitioner is not allotted to any third party and the petitioner apprehends that the respondent would take all measure to allot the same to the third party, while the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration.

¶24

The said submission is disputed by the learned

¶25

counsel for the respondent-KIADB.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for respondents

¶27

would submit that if some time is accorded by this Court, the representation would be considered in accordance with law.

¶28

The said submission is placed on record.

¶29

In light of the said facts, this Court pass the

¶30

following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) Writ petition stands disposed of with a

¶33

direction to the respondent to consider the representations

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:34183 WP No. 17221 of 2023

¶36

of the petitioner at Annexures – B, E and F in a time span

¶37

of two months in accordance with law.

¶38

(ii) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶39

(iii) Till consideration of the representation of the

¶40

petitioner, the respondents are directed not to allot the property mentioned in the representation, if not allotted to any third party as on today.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri. Govindaraju.R v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Govindaraju.R v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irix Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

R G Somashekar Vs Assistant Commissioner

D S Siddappa Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sri Ancherangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

K. Ashwathappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Yogesh Pharmaceuticals Vs Canara Bank