Partly allowed

V N Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/3384/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing KIADB to accept the difference of market price and execute a lease-cum-sale deed over an industrial plot allotted through late V.M. Madhusudhan. Respondents contended the allotment was to a registered firm. The court permitted the petitioners to make a representation, with hearing to respondent No.5, expressing no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Permission to petitioners to make a representation within two weeks; respondents 2-4 to consider it within eight weeks after hearing respondent No.5.

V N Muralidhar Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19842 WP No. 3384 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 3384 OF 2019 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

V. N. MURALIDHAR, S/O V. N. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS,

¶9

SUJATHA, W/O V. N. MURALIDHAR,

¶10

SMITHA MADHUSUDHAN, W/O LATE B. M. MADHUSUDHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.39/5, 1^ST 'A' MAIN ROAD, 1^ST 'N' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10.

¶11

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SMT. CHITHARA B.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARUMBAIAH T. A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19842 WP No. 3384 of 2019

¶18

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, No.49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K. I. A. D. B. No.49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, No.49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶21

*5. C.P. PRATHAP, S/O LATE C.J. PRABHAKAR, R/AT SKYLINE APARTMENT, No.714, NAGARBHAVI 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560072.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1; SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI C. VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE AND SRI KARTHIK REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 TO ACCEPT THE DIFFERENCE OF MARKET PRICE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO Rs.15,01,649/- FROM THE PETITONERS AND TO EXECUTE THE LEASE CUM SALE IN THEIR FAVOR WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD.

¶25

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

¶26

*Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 18.06.2024.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:19842 WP No. 3384 of 2019

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The present writ petition seeking the following

¶31

reliefs:

¶32

"1. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to accept the difference of market price of the schedule property amounting to Rs.15,01,649/form the petitioners and to execute the lease cum sale deed in their favour within a specified period."

¶33

2. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are claiming rights through V. M.

¶35

Madhusudhan. Sri. Madhusudhan has filed an application for allotment of industrial plot. It is submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 allotted the land infavour of the petitioners. Pursuant to the allotment, partial payment is made. Before making a final payment, the price has been revised by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioners are willing to make a difference market price of

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:19842 WP No. 3384 of 2019

¶38

Rs.15,01,649/- and prays to issue directions to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to execute lease-cum-sale deed in their favour.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the allotment was in favour of the registered firm as per Annexure-A. It is further submitted that as per Annexure - C dated 15.02.2013, Possession Certificate has been issued in favour of the firm. It is submitted that due to change of name of the firm, the name of the firm reflected in Annexure-A - Allotment Letter is different from

¶40

the name of the firm at Annexure-C. Learned counsel submits that as the allotment was in favour of the firm, the petitioners have no right in the subject property in their individual capacity merely on the ground that late V. M. Madhusudhan was partner in the firm.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 reiterating the submissions of respondent No.5 submits that the allotment and possession was in favour of the registered firm and the petitioners have no locus to seek any relief in respect of the subject land.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19842 WP No. 3384 of 2019

¶43

Perused the writ petition papers and considered

¶44

the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

Prima facie , as seen from Annexure-A, allotment of land in Plot No.68F of Sompura Industrial Area, 1^st Stage near Dabaspet, pursuant to application dated 02.09.2008 was in favour of M/s. Integrated Work Place Furniture Limited. Subsequently, respondent No.5 has made request for extension of time for making balance payments towards cost of the land. As per Annexure-C - Possession Certificate has been issued in favour of respondent No.5. This Court on the basis of Annexures-A and C cannot immediately concluded as to whether the land was allotted in favour of Sri. V. M. Madhusudhan or in favour of the firm without examining the application as well as the other correspondences with respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶46

In the circumstances, ends of justice would meet if the petitioners are permitted to make representation to respondent Nos.2 to 4 by making their

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19842 WP No. 3384 of 2019

¶48

claim. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 would consider the same in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that in view of the specific contention of respondent No.5, respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall extend an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5 before taking any decision on the representations to be made by the petitioners. In the

¶49

circumstances, the following:

¶50

O R D E R

¶51

Writ petition is allowed-in-part .

¶52

The petitioners are permitted to make a representation before respondent Nos.2 to 4 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall consider the said representation if filed within eight weeks thereafter after granting an opportunity to respondent No.5.

¶54

It is made clear that no opinion on merits is expressed by this Court.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

VBS

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

V N Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V N Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Umapathi S/O Late Subramanyam Vs the Central Information Commissioner

Sri. H. Srinivas Vs Shankar Patil

M/S Vijaya Film Institute (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka

G K Kantharaju Vs the Public Information Officer

M/S Global Techpark Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Iftaqar Ahmed @ Javeed Ahmed Vs the Bangalore City Co-Operative Bank Limited