Karnataka High Court
Lotus International vs Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4380
WP No. 4292 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4292 OF 2023 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
LOTUS INTERNATIONAL
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PLOT NO.62 (CORNER)
HI-TECH DEFENSE AND AERO SPACE PARK
(IT SECTOR)
AREBINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
REP. BY ITS AURTHORISED SIGNTORY
DR VASU REDDY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY J N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PADMAVATHI B K ("KIADB")
Location: HIGH NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING
COURT OF NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, A.G., FOR
SRI. SUDHINDRA B S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO ISSUE A ALLOTMENT LETTER FOR 0.5 ACRE OF
LAND IN PLOT NO.11-A1-P IN PHASE 1 OF THE HI-TECH DEFENSE
AND AEROSPACE AREA, BANGALORE IN TERMS OF THE LETTER
DATED 10/12/2019 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C) AS MANDATED BY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4380
WP No. 4292 of 2023
GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.CI 179 IAP(E) 2020 DATED
29/01/2021 (PRODUCED ANNEXURE-D).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Ajay J.N., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri. Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate
General appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the
following prayer:
"a) Grant a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent
to issue a Allotment Letter for 0.5 Acre of land in
Plat No.11/A1-P in Phase 1 of the Hi-Tech Defense
and Aerospace Area, Bangalore in terms of the
letter bearing no:fPÉÊPÉÃ/¨ÉA£À/E1/fªÀÄKUÀM¤¸À-4/2.68/2019-20
dated 10/12/2019 (produced at Annexure - A) as
mandated by Government Order bearing no.CI 179
IAP(e) 2020 dated 29/01/2021 (produced
Annexure - D);
b) Issue any other order as deems fit to the facts and
circumstances of the case and to meet the interest
of justice."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
NC: 2024:KHC:4380
W.P.No.4961/2022, disposed of on 22.01.2024, wherein this
Court has held as follows:
" 3. The subject petition is filed seeking a direction
by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to
consider issuance of allotment letter in respect of land
measuring 2 acres in sub-layout formed in plot No.11,
as site Nos.A31, A32, A39 and A40 in the Hi-Tech
defence and Aerospace park, Bangalore.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition
are:
The petitioner a proprietary concern claims to be
in the field of IT/ITES/mixed services for the last 15
years. It claims to have filed an application before the
3rd respondent/Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, for allotment of
industrial land measuring 2 acres in the IT park area as
observed hereinabove. It is the averment in the
petition that on 27-10-2021 the respondents hold
24th sub-committee meeting on the subject of approval
of the layout plan and cost structure. In the said
meeting it was decided to grant approval for formation
of a sub-layout in site No.11 to an extent of 52.35 acres
and further division to an extent of 18.65 acres. It is
the further averment that the respondents are reluctant
to allot 2 acres of land in favour of the petitioner and
therefore, the petitioner had submitted representations
to the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra requesting it to place the
application of the petitioner in the next ensuing meeting
for allotment of 2 acres of land. Since the application is
not placed before the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, the
petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.Ajay.J.Nandalike would submit that the applications
filed before the Udyog Mitra are not taken up on
seniority/first come first consideration basis and submits
that a direction be issued to the 3rd
respondent/Karnataka Udyoga Mitra to consider the
application for the very land that is sought to be allotted
and a consequent direction to the 2nd
respondent/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board to allot the land to the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:4380
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent/Karnataka Udyoga Mitra Smt.Sukrutha.R.
would refute the submissions contending that no
applicant can claim that they be allotted a particular
land. The extent of land and the project report should
be filed before the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra and the
Udyoga Mitra would consider the application, in
accordance with law. She would submit that petitioner
had initially made an application on 31.05.2020, the
said proposal was placed before the Land Audit
Committee ('LAC' for short) and the LAC had opined
that there was no land of 2 acres available as sought by
the petitioner in the application. The application along
with the report was placed before the 3rd respondent.
Accordingly, it was resolved to consider the
recommendations of the LAC, as no land is available in
the IT park area of the Hi-tech defence and Aerospace
park. She would, therefore, contend that the
petitioner's application itself is yet to merit any
consideration by the Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, as the
petitioner is seeking something beyond consideration of
application.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel
and have perused the material on record.
8. Petitioner is an applicant for allotment of 2
acres of land. The application is submitted before the
Karnataka Udyoga Mitra. The Karnataka Udyoga Mitra,
in accordance with law, has directed the Land Audit
Committee to look into the demand of allotment of the
petitioner. There is no land available in the place where
the petitioner applies for. It is trite law that an
applicant seeking allotment of land cannot be seen to
seek a particular piece of land only, but can seek the
extent of land in terms of the project report that would
be placed before the Udyog Mitra. In that light, the
application of the petitioner has once merited
consideration and the finding is, the land is not
available.
9. Learned counsel Smt.Sukrutha R. would submit
that, if an application of the petitioner is pending, the
same would merit consideration in accordance with law
NC: 2024:KHC:4380
as and when the Committee would meet for
consideration of such applications.
10. On the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a particular piece of land
is available for allotment, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on 01.12.2023 had passed the following interim
order:
"In the meantime, respondent No.2 is directed not
to allot Plot No.P3, admeasuring 1.35 acres, situated at
Hi-Tech Defence and Aerospace Park, behind IFCI
Compound, Devenahalli, Bengaluru Rural, if not allotted
as on date, till the next date of hearing."
It was directed that a particular plot of land
should not be allotted till the next date of hearing. What
requires to be noticed is, the application submitted by
the petitioner at the outset has been closed for want of
land and the application said to be pending is yet to
meet its consideration. Therefore, if the application
itself is pending and the fact that no applicant can seek
a particular land, the relief that the petitioner seeks of
allotment of a particular land cannot be granted.
However, petitioner is entitled to a direction for
consideration of the application filed before the Udyog
Mitra, if any, on the next ensuing date of its meeting.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is disposed.
(ii) The respondent /Udyog Mitra is directed to
consider the application of the petitioner, if
any, in the next ensuing meeting, in
accordance with law.
(iii) Interim order subsisting as on date shall
stands dissolved."
NC: 2024:KHC:4380
4. In the light of the order passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons
aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) Mandamus issues to the respondent to issue a
allotment letter in terms of the letter dated
10.12.2019, within a period of three months, from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
