[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Industrial Areas vs Smt. Santhosh Kumari on 2 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
W.A. No.1342/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.1342/2023 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
III AND IV FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560001
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY
by ARSHIFA ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BAHAR KHANAM AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
Location: High
Court Of 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Karnataka KIADB, KRS ROAD
METAGALLI, MYSORE - 570016.
3. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
KIADB, ZONAL OFFICE
KRS ROAD, METAGALLI
MYSORE -570016.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. SANTHOSH KUMARI
W/O RAJENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
W.A. No.1342/2023
HC-KAR
PROPRIETRIX
M/S TULASI SOFTWARE
NO.22, D. DEVARAJU URS ROAD
MYSORE- 570001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER
K R S ROAD, METAGALLI
MYSORE - 570016.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR C/R1
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14.08.2023 PASSED IN THE WP No.13635/2016 (GM-KIADB)
BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE WP & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
W.A. No.1342/2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated
14.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP.No.13635/2016 (GM-KIADB).
2. Sri.P.V.Chandrasehkar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that the learned
Single Judge has committed an error in interfering with
the fixation of price for the allotted site. It is submitted
that the site was allotted in favour of the respondent No.1
in the year 2016 and on the said date, the allotment rates
were Rs.50,00,000/- per acre and the order of the learned
Single Judge for collection of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre is
impermissible. It is further submitted that the respondent
No.1, in his representation dated 15.09.2006 agreed to
pay the new allotment price and considering the said
aspect, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
HC-KAR
the writ petition. It is also submitted that the appellant-
KIADB is a statutory body and works on 'no profit no loss'
basis and now, by virtue of the order of the learned Single
Judge, they are required to collect lesser amount. Hence,
he seeks to allow the appeal.
3. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Rajeswara, learned counsel
for the respondent No.1 supports the order of the learned
Single Judge and submits that the request of the
respondent No.1 for allotment of site was in the year 2005
and admittedly, no steps have been taken by the
appellants. Considering the same, the learned Single
Judge ordered to collect the prevailing sital rates of the
year 2005 and further granted liberty to collect differential
sital value after completion of the entire layout work. It is
submitted that there is no justification for the appellants to
file an appeal against such order. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
HC-KAR
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.
5. The material on record indicates that the
respondent No.1 was allotted plot bearing No.285
measuring 1 acre in Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysuru, on
30.06.1999 and the respondent No.1-allottee has remitted
the full sital value immediately after the allotment. It is
noticed that the respondent No.1 could not start the
software industry as the allotted site was in sloping
terrain, there is erosion of soil because of the rain and it
was not suitable for commencement of the industry for
which allotment was made. The respondent No.1
requested for allotment of an alternate site by returning
the original documents to the appellants on 27.03.2001.
The records further indicate that the appellants offered an
alternate site but demanded allotment price at
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
HC-KAR
Rs.16,00,000/- per acre which can be evidenced from the
letter dated 02.12.2005 at Annexure-E. The District Level
Single Window Clearance Committee, in its meeting held
on 28.03.2006 decided to allot an alternate site on
prevailing allotment rates. In response to the said
meeting, the respondent No.1 consented for payment of
revised cost as per the letter dated 15.09.2006 at
Annexure-H. The records further indicate that there were
number of correspondences between the respondent No.1
and the appellants wherein the respondent No.1 had
requested for allotment of an alternate site as agreed by
the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants allotted a site
on 01.02.2016 by issuing an allotment letter which is
produced at Annexure-A. In the said allotment letter, the
appellants have made a demand for payment of
Rs.50,00,000/- per acre which was assailed before the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge,
considering the rival contentions and the material available
on record, recorded a clear finding that there is no
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
HC-KAR
justification for demand of Rs.50,00,000/- for the allotted
plot and ordered to collect Rs.16,00,000/- per acre and
further liberty was reserved to the appellants to collect the
differential sital value after the entire layout work was
completed. We do not find any error or perversity in the
order of the learned Single Judge. It is an undisputed fact
that the respondent No.1 has paid the entire allotment
price in the year 1999-2000 in respect of an industrial plot
bearing No.285 of Hebbal Industrial Area which was not
feasible to establish an industry. The respondent
submitted a representation in the year 2005 requesting for
alternate plots which was agreed by the appellants as is
evident from the material on record. Merely because the
allotment is made in the year 2016, the appellants cannot
demand for Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. The records also
make it clear that it was the appellants who had delayed
the allotment of site to the respondent No.1 and for such
delay, there cannot be any justification for demand of sital
value of the year 2016. The learned Single Judge has
NC: 2025:KHC:50943-DB
HC-KAR
specifically granted liberty to collect the differential sital
value after completion of the development work.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the
view that absolutely there is no merit in the appeal and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the pending interlocutory applications
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
