Karnataka High Court
M/S Navodaya Industrial And ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2022
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.101348/2018 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN
1. M/S NAVODAYA INDUSTRIAL AND
HOUSING DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
STALL NO.2, STATION ROAD,
DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI.CHANNABASAPPA B. YALIGAR.
2. SRI.CHANNABASAPPA B. YALIGAR
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER,
STALL NO.34, 14TH CROSS,
NAVODAYA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001.
3. SMT.ANNAPOORNA
W/O CHANNABASAPPA PYALIGAR
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER,
STALL NO.34, 14TH CROSS,
NAVODAYA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001.
4. SRI.SHASHIDHAR
S/O CHANNABASAPPA YALIGAR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER,
STALL NO.34, 14TH CROSS,
NAVODAYA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S. KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES and
COMMERCE, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, A STATUTORY AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS CEO AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
and EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KIADB, LAKAMANAHALLI,
DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:12.02.2018 BEARING
NO.KIADB/HO/14573/Vol-2/17489/ 17-18 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-J), ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. GRANT
INTERIM ORDER, TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO
CREATE THIRD PARTY'S INTEREST AND AT ANY RATE NOT
TO DISPOSE OR ALLOT 50 ACRES OF LAND IN
MAMMIGATTI AND NARENDRA VILLAGES ADJOINING THE
LAND EARMARKED FOR KAYAKANAGARAS PER
ALLOTMENT DATED:15.07.2003 ANNEXURE-A AND MORE
CLEARLY EXPLAINED IN THE MAP AT ANNEXURE-B
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE WRIT PETITION.
3
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
Sri. Gurudas Kannur and Sri. Basavaraj
Sabard, the learned Senior Counsels, and the learned
Additional government Advocate are heard. This
Court must begin with the observation that this is a
third round of litigation involving the petitioners.
The first round of litigation has culminated with the
orders by the Hon'ble Supreme court affirming the
dismissal of the petitioners' suit with certain
observations that read as under.
"Having heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, we find no merit in this petition. The
same is accordingly dismissed.
Be that as it may, the order passed by us
will not preclude the petitioners, especially in the
background of the fact that it is asserted that the
land in question has not been put to any use till
date, to re-approach the authorities for a fresh
allotment, in accordance with law."
The first round of litigation begins with the first
petitioner being allotted 50 acres, but the KIADB has
cancelled this allotment in terms of its
communication dated 5.03.2007. The first petitioner
has impugned such cancellation in O.S. No.88/2010.
The suit is decreed by the Judgment dated
12.12.2012 declaring that the cancellation of
allotment is arbitrary and invalid with a direction to
the KIADB to work out the actual area to be
developed by the first petitioner excluding the land
allotted to another allottee viz., M/s. KPTCL.
The KIADB has impugned this Judgment and
decree in RFA No.4166/2013. This appeal is allowed
by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment
dated 26.04.2013 and consequentially, the judgment
and decree dated 12.12.2012 in O.S. No.88/2010 is
set aside and the suit dismissed. The first petitioner
has impugned the division Bench's judgment before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
No.14458/2016 but unsuccessfully and has the
benefit of the observation as aforesaid.
The second round of litigation is inter se the
first petitioner, the respondents herein and an
Association of entrepreneurs who have been allotted
plots [and their employees] and certain allottees. The
second round of litigation is in W.P. No.
103873/20201 and 106335/2014 and these
petitions are disposed of by this Court on 11.2.2022.
This Court has disposed of these petitions in
the light of the KIADB's specific contention that the
total extent of 241 acres earmarked for Social
Infrastructure Zone, because of certain
circumstances, is bifurcated for Industrial Use and
Housing Project. The Board has utitlized 130.56
acres for industrial use/allied use and the remaining
111 acres for Housing Project is to be executed by the
Board itself. This Court has also considered the
Board's specific stand that 130.56 acres comprises
50 acres that was initially allotted to the first
petitioner and is later allotted to others. If the
petitioners' request for a fresh allotment is to be
considered by the Board, it should necessarily be in
the light of the statements made before this Court in
the second round of litigation and, of course, subject
to any orders in the appeal against this Court's
orders in W.P. No. 103873/20201 and 106335/2014,
if filed.
Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of
calling upon the Board to consider the petitioners'
request for fresh allotment in the light of the
observations as aforesaid. The petitioners, to
facilitate the same, shall be at liberty to file a
representation with the Board enclosing a certified
copy of this order within four weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kms
