Disposed

Lotus International v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024WP/4292/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A proprietary firm sought mandamus directing KIADB to issue an allotment letter for 0.5 acre in the Hi-Tech Defence and Aerospace Park, relying on a co-ordinate Bench order. The Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to seek extension of the project period before the Udyog Mitra.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to petitioner to seek project extension before the Udyog Mitra, which shall consider it in accordance with law.

Lotus International Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4380 WP No. 4292 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4292 OF 2023 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LOTUS INTERNATIONAL A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.62 (CORNER) HI-TECH DEFENSE AND AERO SPACE PARK (IT SECTOR) AREBINNAMANGALA VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK REP. BY ITS AURTHORISED SIGNTORY DR VASU REDDY

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AJAY J N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD ("KIADB") NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, A.G., FOR SRI. SUDHINDRA B S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE A ALLOTMENT LETTER FOR 0.5 ACRE OF LAND IN PLOT NO.11-A1-P IN PHASE 1 OF THE HI-TECH DEFENSE AND AEROSPACE AREA, BANGALORE IN TERMS OF THE LETTER DATED 10/12/2019 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C) AS MANDATED BY

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:4380 WP No. 4292 of 2023

¶17

GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.CI 179 IAP(E) 2020 DATED 29/01/2021 (PRODUCED ANNEXURE-D).

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri.Ajay J.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent.

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

¶22

following prayer:

¶23

"a) Grant a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to issue a Allotment Letter for 0.5 Acre of land in Plat No.11/A1-P in Phase 1 of the Hi-Tech Defense and Aerospace Area, Bangalore in terms of the letter bearing no :fPÉÊPÉÃ/¨ÉA£À/E1/fªÀÄKUÀM¤¸À-4/2.68/2019-20 dated 10/12/2019 (produced at Annexure - A) as mandated by Government Order bearing no.CI 179 IAP(e) 2020 dated 29/01/2021 (produced Annexure - D);

¶24

b) Issue any other order as deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the interest of justice."

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶26

that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the

¶27

judgment rendered by *t he Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶28

* Deleted vide Court order dated 26.02.2024.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:4380 WP No. 4292 of 2023

¶31

W.P.No.4961/2022, disposed of on 22.01.2024 , wherein this

¶32

Court has held as follows:

¶33

“ 3. The subject petition is filed seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider issuance of allotment letter in respect of land measuring 2 acres in sub-layout formed in plot No.11, as site Nos.A31, A32, A39 and A40 in the Hi-Tech defence and Aerospace park, Bangalore.

¶34

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition

¶35

are:

¶36

The petitioner a proprietary concern claims to be in the field of IT/ITES/mixed services for the last 15 years. It claims to have filed an application before the 3^rd respondent/Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, for allotment of industrial land measuring 2 acres in the IT park area as observed hereinabove. It is the averment in the petition that on 27-10-2021 the respondents hold 24^th sub-committee meeting on the subject of approval of the layout plan and cost structure. In the said meeting it was decided to grant approval for formation of a sub-layout in site No.11 to an extent of 52.35 acres and further division to an extent of 18.65 acres. It is the further averment that the respondents are reluctant to allot 2 acres of land in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had submitted representations to the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra requesting it to place the application of the petitioner in the next ensuing meeting for allotment of 2 acres of land. Since the application is not placed before the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

¶37

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ajay.J.Nandalike would submit that the applications filed before the Udyog Mitra are not taken up on seniority/first come first consideration basis and submits that a direction be issued to the 3^rd respondent/Karnataka Udyoga Mitra to consider the application for the very land that is sought to be allotted and a consequent direction to the 2^nd respondent/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to allot the land to the petitioner.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:4380 WP No. 4292 of 2023

¶40

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent/Karnataka Udyoga Mitra Smt.Sukrutha.R. would refute the submissions contending that no applicant can claim that they be allotted a particular land. The extent of land and the project report should be filed before the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra and the Udyoga Mitra would consider the application, in accordance with law. She would submit that petitioner had initially made an application on 31.05.2020, the said proposal was placed before the Land Audit Committee (‘LAC’ for short) and the LAC had opined that there was no land of 2 acres available as sought by the petitioner in the application. The application along with the report was placed before the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, it was resolved to consider the recommendations of the LAC, as no land is available in the IT park area of the Hi-tech defence and Aerospace park. She would, therefore, contend that the petitioner’s application itself is yet to merit any consideration by the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, as the petitioner is seeking something beyond consideration of application.

¶41

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶42

8. Petitioner is an applicant for allotment of 2 acres of land. The application is submitted before the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra. The Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, in accordance with law, has directed the Land Audit Committee to look into the demand of allotment of the petitioner. There is no land available in the place where the petitioner applies for. It is trite law that an applicant seeking allotment of land cannot be seen to seek a particular piece of land only, but can seek the extent of land in terms of the project report that would be placed before the Udyog Mitra. In that light, the application of the petitioner has once merited consideration and the finding is, the land is not available.

¶43

9. Learned counsel Smt.Sukrutha R. would submit that, if an application of the petitioner is pending, the same would merit consideration in accordance with law

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:4380 WP No. 4292 of 2023

¶46

as and when the Committee would meet for consideration of such applications.

¶47

10. On the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a particular piece of land is available for allotment, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.12.2023 had passed the following interim order:

¶48

“In the meantime, respondent No.2 is directed not to allot Plot No.P3, admeasuring 1.35 acres, situated at Hi-Tech Defence and Aerospace Park, behind IFCI Compound, Devenahalli, Bengaluru Rural, if not allotted as on date, till the next date of hearing.”

¶49

It was directed that a particular plot of land should not be allotted till the next date of hearing. What requires to be noticed is, the application submitted by the petitioner at the outset has been closed for want of land and the application said to be pending is yet to meet its consideration. Therefore, if the application itself is pending and the fact that no applicant can seek a particular land, the relief that the petitioner seeks of allotment of a particular land cannot be granted. However, petitioner is entitled to a direction for consideration of the application filed before the Udyog Mitra, if any, on the next ensuing date of its meeting.

¶50

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) Writ Petition is disposed.

¶53

(ii) The respondent /Udyog Mitra is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, if any, in the next ensuing meeting, in accordance with law.

¶54

(iii) Interim order subsisting as on date shall stands dissolved."

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:4380 WP No. 4292 of 2023

¶57

In the light of the order passed by this Court

¶58

(supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Writ Petition is disposed.

¶61

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek extension of the period of its project before the Udyog Mitra and the Udyog Mitra, if any such extension is sought for, shall consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶62

(iii) All consequential action would be in accordance with law, after the Udyog Mitra considers extension of the project of the petitioner.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

¶66

Page No.6 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 26.02.2024.

Lotus International v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lotus International 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

Mr. H v Suresh Vs the Bangalore Souhardha Central Co. Operative Bank Limited

Sri N Venkatesh Vs the Managing Director

Naveeda Kanum Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri. Venkatesh S Vs Union Bank of India

Smt. Chandramma N Vs Bank of India

M/S Manisha Oil Enterprises Vs State Bank of India