Karnataka High Court
Laxman S/O Namdev Rathod Since Deceased ... vs The Chief Executive Officer And Anr on 5 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
WA No.200126 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.200126 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
LAXMAN
S/O NAMDEV RATHOD
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) ASHOK
S/O LAXMAN RATHOD
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
1(b) SUBHASH
S/O LAXMAN RATHOD
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N 1(c) SHANTABAI
RASALKAR
Location: High W/O THAVAREPPA CHAVAN
Court Of Karnataka AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
1(d) SHOBHA
W/O DHANASINGH CHAVAN
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
1(e) AKASH
S/O PANDU RATHOD
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: NIL
1(f) KIRAN
S/O PANDU RATHOD
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: NIL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
WA No.200126 of 2023
1(g) POOJA
D/O PANDU RATHOD
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: NIL
SINCE THE PETITIONERS NO.1 (E) TO 1(G)
ARE THE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN UNCLE
PETITIONER NO.1(A)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 49, 4TH AND
5TH FLOORS, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLOT NO.7/B-3
B.K. KANGRALI INDUSTRIAL AREA
PUNE - BENGALURU ROAD
BELGAUM - 590 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.M.NAGRAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 11.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
IN W.P. NO.207153/2017 (LA-KIADB) BY ALLOWING THIS
WRIT APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
WA No.200126 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is by the appellants under Section 4
of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 challenging the
order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.207153/2017 whereby the writ petition
filed by the petitioners is rejected and order passed by the
respondents - Board cancellation and resumption of
allotment of industrial shed in favour of petitioner has
been upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an
application for allotment of industrial plot by one
Sri Laxman S/o Namdev Rathod [the father of the
appellants herein], the respondent - Board, subject to
certain conditions, has allotted the plot bearing No.85
situated at Mahalbagayat Industrial Area, Vijayapura to
the said Sri Laxman. After the death of Sri Laxman,
appellants succeeded the rights of their father. Since the
appellants have not established the industry within the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
time as contemplated under the lease executed by the
respondents - Board in favour of original petitioner, the
authority issued notice for resumption of the land. After
issuing notice, the respondents - Board in its order
20.05.2017 cancelled the plot allotted to the petitioner and
ordered for resumption of the plot. Being aggrieved by
the same, the appellants approached the writ Court by
filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge by order
dated 11.07.2023 has dismissed the writ petition. Being
aggrieved by the same, the appellants/petitioners have
filed this writ appeal.
3. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants has contended that when the
notice has been issued for resumption of plot, the father of
the appellants was not keeping well because of he
underwent heart surgery, as such, he was unable to give
reply to the notice. He further contended that after the
allotment of plot in question, the appellants have
established the industry in the name and style M/s.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
Sevalal Hollow Bricks Industry. The learned counsel
further submits that if respondents - Board extend one
more opportunity, the appellants will produce the
documents to prove that they have established the
industry as per the lease agreement and they engage in
manufacturing hallow bricks. On these grounds, he sought
for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri A.M. Nagral, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents - Board contended that the
plot in question has been allotted to the father of the
appellants in the year 1995 and even after nearing
completion of three decades, the appellants have not
established the industry in terms of the lease agreement.
He further contended that, in spite of issuing notices to the
appellants on six occasions coupled with issuance of notice
by way of paper publication, the appellants have not
turned up to reply to all those notices. Since the terms
mentioned in the lease is violated, the respondents- Board
canceled the allotment of land and resumed the plot. He
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
contended that learned Single Judge after considering this
aspect of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ
petition. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the appeal papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondents - Board
on 19.10.1995, has allotted a plot bearing No.85 situated
at Mahalbagayat Industrial Area, Vijayapura to the father
of the appellants inter alia with a condition that he has to
establish the industry within two years from the date of
the allotment. Since the appellants have not established
the industry, the authority has issued notice under Section
34 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
1966 and resumed the land. It is also not in dispute that
notice issued by the Board to the appellants in six times
and also by way of paper publication but they have not
appeared and produced the documents to show that they
have established the industry and it is the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellants that if the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
respondents- Board extends one more opportunity, the
appellants will produce the documents to prove that they
have established the industry in the allotted plot. It is to
be noted that this Court has given opportunity to the
appellants to produce documents to show that whether
hallow brick industry as claimed by them has been
established in the plot or not. Nevertheless, the
appellants instead of availing the opportunity as a last
resort, have not produced any document before this Court
to show that they have manufactured the bricks and sold
the same to the consumers and they have paid any tax in
respect of manufacturing. The photographs produced at
Annexure-G clearly go to show that except installation of
bore-well and erecting of two sheds, there is no
manufacturing unit forthcoming from the photographs to
show that they have established the hollow bricks
industry. Of course, these circumstances led the
respondents - authority causing several notices to the
appellants resulting in resumption of the plot for violation
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1969-DB
of terms of lease agreement and the writ Court has rightly
confirmed the order passed by the respondents - Board.
7. For the foregoing, the appellants have not made
out any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we decline to
interfere with the order passed by the writ Court.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.Nos.2
and 3/2023 stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct;Vk
