Disposed¶46

M/S. Champaka Distributors v. Karnataka Industrial Areas

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2025WP/34959/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice E.S. Indiresh; WP No.34959 of 2016 (GM-KIADB); NC: 2025:KHC:41395; decided 17.10.2025. KIADB; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board; Article 12 instrumentality; direction to consider representations; industrial plot allotment; 2 acres; Survey No.197 and Survey No.83; Shyanumangala Village; Bidadi Hobli; Ramanagara Taluk; Annexures-A, AA, C, AB; two-month time limit; interim restraint on allotment; Articles 226 and 227; writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 (KIADB) to consider the representations of petitioner No.1 (Annexures-A, AA) and petitioner No.2 (Annexures-C, AB) within two months of receipt of the order; the property claimed by the petitioners, if not yet allotted to anyone, to remain untouched until such consideration. ¶46

M/S. Champaka Distributors Vs Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (KIADB) should be directed to consider the representations of petitioner No.1 (Annexures-A and AA) and petitioner No.2 (Annexures-C and AB) seeking allotment of industrial plots measuring 2 acres each in Survey Nos.197 and 83 of Shyanumangala Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

The Court recorded the view that respondent No.1-KIADB, being an instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, shall consider the representations filed by the petitioners in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1 was directed to consider the representations of petitioner No.1 dated 19.06.2012 (Annexure-A) and 27.08.2014 (Annexure-AA) and of petitioner No.2 dated 19.06.2012 (Annexure-C) and 27.08.2014 (Annexure-AB) within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶39

Key takeaways

Interim direction: if the property claimed by the petitioners has not been allotted to any other person, it shall remain as it is until respondent No.1 considers the representations of the petitioners.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (GM-KIADB) by two proprietary concerns stating that their land was acquired by KIADB and partly remains in their possession; they sought directions to KIADB to consider their representations of 19.06.2012 and 27.08.2014 for allotment of industrial plots measuring 2 acres in Survey Nos.197 and 83, Shyanumangala Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that KIADB, being an instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution, shall consider the representations in accordance with law and directed consideration within an outer limit of two months from receipt of the order; further directed that if the claimed property is not allotted to anyone, it shall remain as it is until the representations are considered. Writ petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41395 WP NO.34959 OF 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.34959 OF 2016 (GM-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. CHAMPAKA DISTRIBUTORS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, SMT. SHRUTI SAMPATH W/O S. SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶10

M/S SRI. MARUTHI ENTERPRISES A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR. SRI. S. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.4, BHIMENAHALLI, VIA EAGLETON GOLF RESORT, SHYANUMANGALA CROSS, OPPOSITE B.M.ROAD, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK - 562 109.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:41395 WP NO.34959 OF 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶21

M/S SHANKAR INDUSTRIES SANTHEPETE, ARSIKERE - 573 103. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. K.R. NAGENDRA.

¶22

M/S. SANJANA FRP & ALLIED PRODUCTS NO.1531, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK SRI. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 056. PROPRIETOR, SMT. T. MEERA DEVI W/O J. BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR FOR R1; SMT. SHAGUN BAID, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ALLOT INDUSTRIAL PLOT MEASURING 2 ACRES IN SURVEY NO.197 OF SHYANUMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 DATED 19^TH JUNE, 2012 AND 27^TH AUGUST, 2014 VIDE ANNEXURES 'A' AND 'AA'; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ALLOT INDUSTRIAL PLOT MEASURING 2 ACRES IN SURVEY NO.83 OF SHYANUMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 DATED 19^TH JUNE, 2012 AND 27^TH AUGUST, 2014 VIDE ANNEXURES 'C' AND 'AB'; AND ETC.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41395 WP NO.34959 OF 2016

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the representations dated 19^th June, 2012 (Annexure-A) and 27^th August, 2014 (Annexure-AA) filed by the petitioner No.1, seeking allotment of Industrial Plot measuring 2 acres in Survey No.197 of Shyanumangala Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and representations dated 19^th June, 2012 (Annexure-C) and 27^th August, 2014 (AnnexureAB) filed by the petitioner No.2, seeking allotment of Industrial Plot measuring 2 acres in Survey No.83 of Shyanumangala Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question being acquired by the respondent No.1-KIADB belongs to the petitioners and the portion of the land is in possession of the petitioners. In this regard, petitioners have addressed representations to the respondent No.1, seeking allotment of vacant land which is pending consideration before the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for long time.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:41395 WP NO.34959 OF 2016

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Heard Sri. Rajeshwara P.N., learned counsel

¶38

appearing for petitioners; Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; Smt. Shagun Baid, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Ajay J. Nandalike, appearing for the respondent No.2 and Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶39

Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the respondent No.1-KIADB being an instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India shall consider the representation filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner No.1 dated 19^th June, 2012 (Annexure-A) and 27^th August, 2014 (Annexure-AA) and representations of the petitioner No.2 dated 19^th June, 2012 (Annexure-C) and 27^th August, 2014 (Annexure-AB) within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶40

It is made clear that, in the event, if the property which is being claimed by the petitioners in the present petition

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:41395 WP NO.34959 OF 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

is not allotted to anyone, the same shall remain as it is, till the consideration of the representations of the petitioners by the respondent No.1. With this observation, writ petition stands

¶45

disposed of.

¶46

In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending applications stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶48

ARK

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

M/S. Champaka Distributors v. Karnataka Industrial Areas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Champaka Distributors v. Karnataka Industrial Areas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jain Swarnamala Vs the Authorized Officer

Smt. S Pushpa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anil Kumar Loni Vs Karnataka Lokayukta

Sri G. Prabhakar Vs Mr. Riyaz Ahmed Shariff

Sri Lakshmanadasappa @ Narasimhaiah Vs Sri L Muniyellappa

Smt K M Shakuntala Vs Kumari Megha N Raykar