Disposed

Smt Usha Rani K N v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/23093/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order addresses a writ petition seeking allotment of vacant land. The court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider pending written representations within two months without adjudicating the merit of entitlement. It also ordered a temporary embargo on the property's allotment to third parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representations within two months without adjudicating merit; temporary embargo on allotment to third parties.

Smt Usha Rani K N Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39702 WP No. 23093 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23093 OF 2023 (GM-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.USHA RANI K.N., D/O NAGARAJEGOWDA K.S., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.152, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, PEENYA IIND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD #49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, ‘EAST WING’, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN,

¶14

1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39702 WP No. 23093 of 2023

¶17

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS FOR ALLOTMENT OF THE VACANT LAND SITUATED AT MEASURING 1250 FEET SITUATED AT 14^TH CROSS, OPPOSITE TO BANK OF BARODA ATM, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU BY CONSIDERING THE LETTER DT. 19/08/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNDER ANNEXURE-G.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶24

prayer:

¶25

i. Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate steps for allotment of the vacant land situated at measuring 1250 feet situated at 14^th Cross, Opposite to Bank of Baroda ATM, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru by considering the letter dt: 19/08/2023 ¸ÀASÉå: PÀPÉÊ¥ÀæªÀÄA/PÉÃAPÀ/ºÀAaPÉ/17403/9576/2023-24, issued by the respondents in accordance with law under Annexure – G.

¶26

ii. Issue such other order or direction as may be deemed fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39702 WP No. 23093 of 2023

¶28

The petitioner claims to have submitted an application seeking allotment of particular plot at the hands of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short ‘KIADB’) and further claims to have fulfilled all the necessities of entitlement of the allotment of a plot. Be those submissions as they are.

¶29

In an identical circumstance, a co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.17221/2023 has passed the following order:

¶30

“3. 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”).

¶31

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 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.

¶32

5. The said submission is disputed by the learned

¶33

counsel for the respondent-KIADB.

¶34

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that if some time is accorded by this Court, the representation would be considered in accordance with law.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:39702 WP No. 23093 of 2023

¶37

7. The said submission is placed on record.

¶38

8. In light of the said facts, this Court pass the

¶39

following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexures – B, E and F in a time span of two months in accordance with law.

¶42

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

¶43

(iii) Till consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the respondents are directed not to allot the property mentioned in the representation, if not allotted to any third party as on today.”

¶44

The petitioner in the aforesaid W.P.No.17221/2023 now seeks to implead into these proceedings as party respondent. In the light of the petitioner in the subject petition and the petitioner in W.P.No.17221/2023 having filed their respective applications for allotment of a plot, it is for the respondents – authorities to consider the case of the petitioner herein and the petitioner in W.P.No.17221/2023 with regard to the entitlement

¶45

of allotment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:39702 WP No. 23093 of 2023

¶48

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the entitlement of the petitioner in the subject petition. The order is passed only for the purpose of consideration of the representations submitted by both of the applicants before the Board.

¶49

With these observations, the petition stands disposed.

¶50

Pending I.As’. are disposed, as a consequence.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Smt Usha Rani K N v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Usha Rani K N 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kittur Chenamma Mahila Vs the State of Karnataka

Santhosh Kumar M Vs Smt M Likitha

Sri Ramana Reddy v Vs Union of India

Shareef T.S Vs the Punjab National Bank

Sri. Nazir Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ramesh P Vs Sri M Visveswaraya Co. Op Bank Ltd.