Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Ayub A Bepari vs The Karnataka Industrial on 7 August, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11242
WP No. 109216 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 109216 OF 2014 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB A. BEPARI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 4570, SHETTY GALLI,
BELGAUM.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BELGAUM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KIADB, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHGOUDA N. HATTI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE SET ASIDE
BENCH
Date: 2024.08.19
16:57:10 +0530 ORDER DATED 27/30.07.2010 BEARING
NO.IADB/BGM/HNG/804/2010-11 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11242
WP No. 109216 of 2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2. In this writ petition, the relief is sought to quash
the order dated 27/30.07.2012 bearing
No.IADB/BGM/HNG/804/2010-11 marked at Annexure-A
and to grant any other relief deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case.
3. The main contention of the petitioner before this
Court is that the respondent had executed a lease-cum-
sale deed of industrial plot No.100E situated in R.S.
No.536 of Honaga industrial area measuring 881 sq.mtrs.
to the petitioner and he was put in possession of the suit
property since 04.03.2008. The respondent passed an
order terminating the lease agreement dated 04.03.2008
in respect of unit of the petitioner and further ordered to
take possession of the suit property on 30.07.2010 vide
Annexure-A. Aggrieved by the above said order, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11242
petitioner filed a suit for the relief of declaration and
injunction in O.S.No.1055/2010 on the file of II Addl. Civil
Judge, Belagaum on 26.082010. The suit came to be
dismissed by the Trial Court on 10.04.2013. Aggrieved by
the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred
R.A.No.111/2013 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and Addl. MACT, Belgaum. The lower Appellate Court also
dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court on 09.04.2014. Aggrieved by
the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the
petitioner preferred R.S.A.No.100405/2014 before this
Court. This Court disposed of the second appeal observing
that the petitioner has not approached the proper forum
and reserved liberty to approach the proper forum.
Hence, the present petition is filed.
4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the
impugned order in question is passed without compliance
of Section 34B of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act'). The counsel
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11242
for the petitioner would submit that the respondent before
taking the decision ought to have issued second notice as
contemplated under Section 34A(2) of the Act and no such
compliance is made and hence, taking of decision is bad in
law.
5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent would
contend that when the first notice was issued under
Section 34 of the Act, no reply was given by the petitioner
and hence, the respondent proceeded to pass the order as
per Annexure-A. The counsel would vehemently contend
that when no grievance is raised by the petitioner in
respect of first notice, there was no need to enquire into
the matter and question of issuing second notice does not
arise.
6. In reply arguments, petitioner's counsel relied
upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.49817/2017
disposed of on 21.06.2022 wherein a detailed order has
been passed and in paragraph 7 of the judgment, having
read Section 34B of the Act, discussion was made that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11242
without prejudice to Section 25, give notice not such
allottee specifying the breaches of the terms and
conditions of the allotment, calling upon the allottee to
remedy such breaches within the time stipulated in the
notice and sub-section (2) of Section 34B also states that
if the allottee fails to remedy the breaches within the time
stipulated, the Board shall serve a notice before resuming
the possession of the premises and having taken note of
non-compliance of Section 34B(2) of the Act, this Court
quashed the impugned order and reserved liberty to the
respondent-KIADB to proceed from the stage of Section
34B(1) of the Act and if the petitioner submits satisfactory
reply or if the petitioner has completed the project, the
same shall be taken note by the third respondent while
hearing the petitioner in pursuance of notice under Section
34B92) of the Act.
7. Having considered the similar fact situation in
W.P.No.2016/2017 disposed of on 12.06.2019, the Co-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11242
ordinate Bench of this Court also made detail discussion
regarding Section 34B(1) as well as 34B(2) in that case.
8. Admittedly, no second notice was issued to the
petitioner and he does not dispute the first notice under
Section 34B(1) and also no reply was given in respect of
notice issued Section 34b(1). However, the respondent
ought to have complied with the provisions of Section
34B(2) before resuming the possession while passing the
order as per Annexure-A. Hence, Annexure-A is liable to
be quashed.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 27/30.07.2012 bearing
No.IADB/BGM/HNG/804/2010-11 passed by
the respondent vide Annexure-A is quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to
invoke Section 34B(2) and pass suitable
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11242
orders in accordance with law as observed in
the writ petition No.2016/2017 dated
12.06.2019 as the same is not complied.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
NAA
CT-MCK
