M/S. Vinumac Industries Vs M/S. Karnataka Industrial Areas

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:50481 WP No. 7429 of 2022

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 7429 OF 2022 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. VINUMAC INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI G SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.205A, III PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-560058.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. L. RAJANNA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶12

M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50481 WP No. 7429 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NOS.49954-55/2013 AND REVIEW PETITION NO.179/2020 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A HEREIN AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the respondent/KIADB, wherein, the claim made by the petitioner for allotment of 2 acres of land was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner is not pressing prayer No.’b’ in respect of challenge made to the order at Annexure 'A' to the petition.

¶24

The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner, has made an application to the respondent/KIADB for allotment of the

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:50481 WP No. 7429 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

industrial site, for the purpose of expansion of its industry. Pursuant to the same, an Endorsement was issued on 02.07.2012 by the respondent/KIADB, which came to be challenged before this court in WP No.49954-55/2013 and this court, vide order dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-F) had directed the respondent/KIADB to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 01.07.2019 for allotment of 2 acres of land at Sompura, 1^st stage and 2^nd stage, Dabaspete at the prevailing allotment price, at the earliest.

¶29

It is further stated in this writ petition that, though this court has directed the respondent/KIADB to consider the representation for allotting 2 acres of the land, however, the respondent/KIADB has allotted 0.25 acres of land, in plot No.208-A1 of Avverahalli (Dabaspet-4^th Phase), industrial area at the tentative allotment rate of Rs.150.00 lakhs, per acre, as per Annexure 'A' to the writ petition.

¶30

Heard Sri.L.Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:50481 WP No. 7429 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the order passed by this court in WP No.49954-55/2013 (Annexure-F) that though this court has directed the respondent/KIADB to consider the representation for granting 2 acres of the land, the respondent/KIADB has granted 0.25 acres of the land as per Annexure-A. Therefore, it is contended that there is a disobedience of the order passed by this court by the respondent/KIADB. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that if a reasonable time is provided, as per the condition imposed in Annexure-A, the petitioner will approach the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee for obtaining the project approval for 2 acres of land, subject to availability of land, as on that date, as per law. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the direction may be issued to the respondent/KIADB, for allotment of 2 acres of the land, as per the aforementioned order of this court.

¶35

Per contra, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, invited the attention of this court, to the paragraph No.21 of the order

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50481 WP No. 7429 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

passed in WP No.49954-55/2013 and paragraph No.4 of the order passed in RP No.179/2020, disposed of on 13.07.2021 (Annexure-G), wherein this court has clarified that no order has been passed against the KIADB to allot any specific extent of land. Therefore, it is submitted that since the application made by the petitioner has been considered and KIADB had allotted 0.25 acres of land, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶39

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the order passed by this court in WP No.49954-55/2013 dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-F), wherein this court directed the respondent to consider the representation dated 01.07.2019 filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of 2 acres of land by the respondent/KIADB. However, in RP No.179/2020, disposed of on 13.07.2021 (Annexure-G, at paragraph 4) clarified that no such direction has been issued to the respondent/KIADB to allot any specific extent of land. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the application made by the petitioner dated 14.07.2008, wherein the petitioner has sought for 10,000 sq.ft, upon the same, the respondent/KIADB has

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50481 WP No. 7429 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

allotted 0.25 acres of land in Plot No.208-A1 of Avverahalli Village (Dabaspet 4^th phase) industrial area, at tentative allotment rate of Rs.150.00 lakhs, subject to the petitioner seeking approval from the State level Single Window Clearance Committee, for obtaining the project approval.

¶43

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the entire material on record, as the petitioner herein has given up prayer No.’b’, challenging the Order dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure A), I am of the view that, if the petitioner is able to obtain the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee for obtaining project approval for 2 acres of land, thereafter it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondent/KIADB for allotment of the plot, if so desired.

¶44

It is also to be noted from the letter dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure H) wherein the respondent/KIADB has directed the petitioner by fixing the tentative cost of 0.25 acres of land at Rs.150.00 lakhs per acre + 10% extra charges for the corner plot, to an extent of Rs.41,25,000/-, with a direction to the petitioner to pay 30% initial deposit and EMD (Rs.5,000/- per acre) payable as fixed at Rs.12,42,500/-.

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:50481 WP No. 7429 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in WP No.49954-55/2013, disposed of on 26.07.2019 (Annexure-F), I am of the opinion that, the petitioner be permitted to deposit the of entire amount claimed by the respondent/KIADB, as per Annexure 'H' within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of .

¶50

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶51

AKV

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

M/S. Vinumac Industries v. M/S. Karnataka Industrial Areas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vinumac Industries v. M/S. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sunitha Vs Smt Pavithra

Sri Lokesha a P Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ramanujam v., Vs the Authorised Officer

M/S. Hotel Keerthana International Vs Assistant General Manager

Sri. C. N. Shanthakumar Vs the Asst Managing Director

Mohammed Rizwanulla Vs the Competent Authority