M/S K K Industries vs Karnataka Industrial Area ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9789 Kant

                       1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                   PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                     AND

       THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

  WRIT APPEAL NO.1076 OF 2021 (GM-KIADB)
                    IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.18824 OF 2013 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

  1. M/S K K INDUSTRIES
     A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
     SRI KAMRULLA KHAN
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
     (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

  2. SRI KAMRULLA KHAN
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
     S/O LATE DR M K YOUSUFF KHAN
     BOTH AT PLOT NO.31
     DODDENKUNDI
     INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
     MAHADEVAURA POST
     WHITEFIELD ROAD
     BANGALORE 560 048
     (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

                                  ... APPELLANTS

(BY. SMT. GEETHA LUTHRA SR. COUNSEL FOR
     SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
                          2



AND:

1.     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
       DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       OFFICE AT NO.49 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS
       EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN
       RACE COURSE ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

2.     SRI M KONDAL RAO
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
       S/O SRI LAXMANA RAO
       R/O NO.38/39
       GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT
       KUNDALAHALLI
       BAGNALORE - 560 037

3.     M/S FOYER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LTD
       A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
       THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956
       HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PENT
       HOUSE
       CASA DI MODA APARTMENT
       R/O NO.38/39
       GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT
       KUNDALAHALLI
       BANGALORE - 560 037

                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. A MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 34493/2017
BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION BY ISSUANCE OF
WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
                              3



      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

Smt. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Counsel

for Sri. Showri H.R., learned counsel for the

appellants.

Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned counsel

for respondent No.1.

Sri. A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

This intra Court appeal has been filed

against the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge by which the writ petition

preferred by the appellants has been disposed of.

2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that appellant No.2 was allotted

Plot No.31 in the industrial area at

Doddanekundi Industrial Layout,

Krishnarajapura Hobli. The appellant No.2 was

put in possession of the aforesaid plot and

possession certificate was issued in favour of

appellant No.2 on 11.10.1971. Therefore,

registered lease cum sale agreement in favour of

appellant No.2 was executed on 14.10.1971 by

the then Mysore Industrial Area Development

Board. However, the grievance of the appellants is

that the sale deed was not executed in their

favour. The appellants thereupon filed a writ

petition in which the writ of mandamus was

sought. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is

extracted below for the facility of reference.

"a) for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to execute sale deed with respect to the Schedule Property in favour of the 1st petitioner as contemplated in clause-9 of the Agreement vide Annexure-A dated 14.10.1971 and for such other relief's writ directions, declarations and orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to

grant including the costs of this petition."

3. In the aforesaid writ petition,

respondent Nos.2 and 3 made an application for

impleadment on the basis of an alleged

Memorandum of Understanding allegedly between

the appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned Single Judge by an order

dated 09.08.2021 rejected the application seeking

impleadment. However, the writ petition preferred

by the appellants was disposed of with a direction

to the Board to examine the grievances of the

appellants with regard to the execution of the sale

deed in their favour. Learned Single Judge also

directed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall also

be heard by the Board. The aforesaid exercise

was directed to be completed within a period of

four months.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants submitted that since the application

for impleadment filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3

was rejected, the question of affording an

opportunity of hearing to them while considering

the prayer of the appellants for execution of sale

deed does not arise.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1

submitted that the Board will abide by the

directions which may be issued by this Court.

submitted that they have entered into the alleged

Memorandum of Understanding on 15.07.2013

with the appellants and have paid a huge amount

to appellants under the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding and therefore, respondent Nos.2

and 3 ought to be heard. Alternatively, it is urged

that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had submitted a

representation to the Board seeking allotment of

the land in question and the Board be directed to

grant the allotment of the lease land in question

to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

7. We have considered the submissions

on both sides and perused the records. The scope

of the writ petition before the learned Single

Judge was confined to issue writ of mandamus

for consideration of the grievance of the

appellants with regard to the execution of the sale

deed in pursuance of the Agreement dated

14.10.1971. The scope of the writ petition could

not have been enlarged on the basis of the alleged

Memorandum of Understanding executed

between respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the

appellants. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to

mention that under the alleged Memorandum of

Understanding, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have a

right of Joint Development in respect of the land

in question. Alleged Memorandum of

Understanding does not deal with the execution

of the sale deed in respect of the property in

question in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

8. Therefore, learned Single Judge in the

facts and circumstances of the case has erred in

issuing a direction to the Board to give an

opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos.2 and 3

as well while considering the claim of the

appellants for execution of the sale deed in

pursuance of the Agreement dated 14.10.1971

executed by the Board in favour of appellants.

9. It is therefore directed that the Board

shall consider the case of the appellants for

execution of sale deed in favour of the appellants

in the light of the Agreement dated 14.10.1971 by

a speaking order within a period of four months

from today.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not

expressed any opinion with regard to the claims

of respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the alleged

Memo of Understanding dated 15.07.2013 which

is not the subject matter.

11. Needless to state that respondent

Nos.2 and 3 shall be at liberty to take recourse to

such remedy as may be available to them with

regard to their grievance, if any.

To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by

the learned Single Judge is modified. Accordingly,

the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mds/-