[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. G Mahendravarma vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 8660 OF 2024 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN
MR. G MAHENDRAVARMA
S/O LATE GANTAIAH,
A/A 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 499, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
6TH MAIN ROAD, H BLOCK,
RAMAKIRHNANAGAR,
MYSORE - 570023.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. THARANATH POOJARY., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RAGHAVENDRA NO. 49, 4TH FLOOR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF EAST DIVISION, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
KARNATAKA RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 570016.
REP BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT INDUSTRY CENTRE,
CTI BUILDING SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSORE - 570001.
3. ASSISTANT SECRETARY
KIABD ZONAL OFFICE,
KSR ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
MYSORE - 570016.
4. THE DEVELOMENT OFFICER
ZONAL OFFICE,
KSR ROAD,
MYSORE - 570016.
5. M/S VEERBHADRESHWARA INDUSTRIES
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI VEERABHADRA J,
AGED MAJOR,
NO. 543/1, 10TH CROSS,
V V NAGARA, KALLAHALLI EXTENSION,
MANDYA - 571 401.
PROPRIETORYSHIP CONCERN.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
Ms. SUKURTHA R., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING ALLOTMENT DATED 29/02/2024 ISSUED BY
THE R3 IN FAVOUR OF THE R5 MADE IN NO.
KIADB/MYS/24509/5140/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE
GREATER INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing allotment dated
29.02.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent in favour of
the 5th Respondent made in No.
KIADB/MYS/24509/5140/2023-24 vide Annexure-A,
in the greater interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
b. Issue a consequential writ of mandamus commanding
the Respondent authorities to issue possession
certificate and execute lease cum sale deed in favour
of the Petitioner pursuant to the allotment letters
dated 19.04.2021 and 05.05.2021 as per Annexure-D
& E respectively, considering the representations
dated 23.09.2021, 23.06.2023 vide Annexure-H, J &
K respectively, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste
Community, had applied for a plot reserved for the
said community for starting a garment industry. In
pursuance of which, on 14.05.2019, he received an
intimation that the Single Window Agency, in its
meeting held on 02.05.2019, had allotted 2 acres of
land in Adakanahalli Industrial Area, Mysore district.
Respondent No.3 issued an allotment letter to the
Petitioner on 19.04.2021 in respect of 8080 sq.mts.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
of land in Plot No.2/69-1 of Adakanahalli Industrial
area. In terms of which, the Petitioner was asked to
pay a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- towards 10% of the land
cost and other expenses, the allotment value being
Rs.1.60 crores.
3. Subsequently, a modified allotment letter was issued
on 05.05.2021, calling upon the Petitioner to make
payment of the sum of Rs. 11,97,416/-. The
Petitioner is stated to have made payments as
requested; a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs was paid on
29.01.2021.
4. On account of actual physical possession not having
been handed over, the Petitioner submitted various
representations to respondents on 23.09.2021,
23.03.2023 and 22.06.2023, which were also not
acted upon. He subsequently came to know that the
very same plot had been allotted to respondent No.5
who belongs to non-reserved category and it is
thereafter that the Petitioner made an application
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short
hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act") for a copy of
the allotment letter made in favour of respondent
No.5, when he came to know that such allotment had
been made on 29.02.2024. It is in that background
that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
5. Sri.Tharanath Poojary., learned Senior counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that;
5.1. A total extent of 331 acres has been acquired
for industrial purposes in Adakanahalli
Industrial area, 75 acres amounting to 22.5%
thereof have been reserved for persons
belonging to the SC/ST category, including 5
acres in survey No.95, in which plot No.2/69
has been carved out.
5.2. By referring to the list of available lands, he
submits that plot No.1-A25, Plot No.1-A26, and
plot No. 1-A27 had been reserved for persons
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
belonging to the SC/ST category. That apart, he
submits that there is a total extent of 52.74
acres which is vacant; the Petitioner has not
been granted possession despite an allotment
letter having been issued.
5.3. His submission is also that the Petitioner ranks
at Sl.No.10 in overall seniority in the 2 acres
category as prepared by the sub-committee
and, on that account also, the Petitioner was
required to be granted possession of the 2
acres plot.
5.4. By referring to the 135th Meeting of the District
Level Single Window Clearance Committee
("DLSWCC") dated 02.05.2019, he submits
that 99 applications from the SC/ST category
were approved, including that of the Petitioner,
which was informed to the Petitioner on
14.05.2019. The Petitioner had identified a
suitable plot and submitted a project report
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
seeking the allotment of 2 acres in Plot No.2/69
on 25.05.2019, which was accepted by
respondent No.4-th 4, theelopment Officer on
,25.06.2019 and the plot No.2/69 was
bifurcated into 2/69-1 measuring 2 acres and
2/69-2 measuring 1.74 acres. This report of the
bifurcation has been accepted by the Chief
Executive Officer of the Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board (for short hereinafter
referred to as "KIADB") on 17.07.2019. A
sketch was prepared in respect thereto, and it
is thereafter that the Petitioner was informed
by Respondent No.3 to apply online for 2 acres
of land in plot No.2/69-1, which he applied for
on 03.12.2019.
5.5. His submission is that, it is in pursuance of such
re-application that a provisional allotment order
was issued to the Petitioner in respect of plot
No.2/69-1 in respect of 8080 sq.mts. as
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
regards which the Petitioner was required to
deposit a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- being 10% of
the land cost and remaining 15% was to be
paid at the time of issuance of confirmation
letter.
5.6. On account of there being a variation in the
rebate applicable to persons belonging to the
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe category,
on 05.05.2021, the allotment order was
modified, requiring the Petitioner to make
payment of a sum of Rs. 1,11,97,416/-. The
total cost payable by the Petitioner is Rs.
39,93,540/-, and the government is required to
make payment of Rs . 1,19,80,620/- towards
the land cost.
5.7. On 10.08.2021, respondent No.3 had extended
the time for payment by a period of one month
till 10.09.2021. The Petitioner made payment of
the amounts on 23.09.2021 with a delay of 12
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
days. However, the said payment having been
accepted, no fault can be found with the
Petitioner.
5.8. The provisional allotment having been made,
the payment required of the Petitioner having
been paid, the respondent No.4 had cleared the
confirmation of allotment to the Petitioner, and
the file was sent to the Chief Executive Officer
on 06.06.2022, which was approved by the
Chief Executive Officer on 16.06.2022, despite
which possession was not granted.
5.9. His submission is that when the entire process
in respect of the Petitioner had been completed,
the KIADB has allotted the very same plot to
respondent No.5, who had applied in the
general category and, a lease deed came to be
executed on 17.10.2023 in general category.
5.10. His submission is that the respondent No.5 had
earlier been allotted plot No.142 at Immavu
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
Industrial Area on 17.10.2023, measuring 6023
square meters. Respondent No.5 not being
satisfied with the said plot had requested for
alternate plot No.2/69-A of Adakanahalli
measuring 6022 sq. mtrs. And had applied for
allotment of the plot which was already allotted
to the Petitioner on 21.02.2024.
5.11. On 29.02.2024, the said plot already allotted to
the Petitioner was allotted to the respondent
No.5 by renumbering the plot No.2/69-1 as
2/69-A and possession was given to respondent
No.5 on 29.02.2024.
5.12. It being later on found that the plot had been
allotted to the respondent No.5 again sought
for alternate plot on 06.03.2024 but changed
his mind on 14.03.2024 to retain the very same
plot which had been allotted to the Petitioner.
The respondent No.4 had subsequently, on
15.03.2024, approved the execution of the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
lease deed in favour of the respondent No.5,
which was so executed on 10.05.2024, and
possession was handed over.
5.13. An occupancy certificate in respect of building
constructed on a portion of the allotted land
measuring 1207 Sq. Mtrs. came to be issued on
24.03.2025 and thereafter it is alleged that
respondent No.5 has sub-let the property to
one other person.
5.14. His submission is that a plot which had been
allotted to the Petitioner could not have been
allotted to the respondent No.5, and as such,
the Petitioner has suffered grave and
irreparable harm, loss and injury.
5.15. It is further contended that the Petitioner
belongs to the SC/ST category, the allotment
having been confirmed in favour of the
Petitioner, the plot having been reserved for
SC/ST applicants, the same could not have
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
been allotted to a person belonging to the
general category.
5.16. He submits that there are nearly 52 acres which
are available for allotment to SC/ST category in
the year 2019, despite which possession was
not handed over to the Petitioner. As of
30.05.2024, 66.65 acres out of 75 acres was
utilised, there were still 6.68 acres available for
allotment to the Petitioner.
5.17. Apart from that, the allotment to one M/s Suri
Industries and M/s Chamundeshwari Garments
also been cancelled, and the same is now
available for allotment to the Petitioner.
5.18. His submission is that the contention for the
respondents that there is no land available for
allotment to persons belonging to SC/ST
category is wrong, inasmuch as even
subsequent to the allotment made in favour of
the Petitioner lease-cum-sale agreements have
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
been entered into and with certain other
persons. The Petitioner therefore has been
discriminated against in his submission.
5.19. Lastly, he submits that the allotment made in
favour of the respondent No.5 is not approved
by DLSWCC or SLSWCC as required under
Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002
(for short hereinafter referred to as "Act of
2002") and as such the allotment is required to
be set aside.
6. Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty., learned Senior counsel
appearing for the KIADB would submit that;
6.1. Though initially the handover of possession in
favour of the Petitioner had been denied, there
is a plot which is now available three plots away
in plot No.2/66 measuring 2 acres, which would
be allotted to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner
cannot have any grievance in relation to the
allotment in favour of the respondent No.5.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
6.2. Insofar as the allotment in favour of the
respondent No.5 is concerned, his submission is
that respondent No.5 having been allotted a
plot in Immavu industrial area, the said plot
No.142 came under litigation by the landowners
and it is for that reason that the respondent
No.5 could not implement the project in plot
No.142 and in that background, an alternate
plot was allotted to the respondent No.5, where
the Respondent No.5 has already put up
construction of this industrial unit and is
carrying on production.
6.3. He submits that, at this stage it would not be
fair to reallot the said land to the Petitioner,
when in the said plot, respondent No.5 is
already carrying on its business. The alternate
plot now identified, he submits, being only
three plots away, having the very same
amenities, the approach road being the very
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
same one, the Petitioner could well receive the
said plot in alternative to the plot which had
earlier been allotted.
6.4. By relies on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court dated 12.01.2024 in M/s
Kamalalayaa Real Estates LLP vs. The
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board & Another in WP No.279 of 2024,
more particularly para 7 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate
General representing the Board while taking this
Court through the Act and documents appended
to the petition would seek to demonstrate that,
in the case of cancellation of allotment on the
breach of terms of allotment, no notice need be
issued to the allottee. The result of the breach of
allotment is automatic that the allotment would
be cancelled. He would contend that this very
clause was called in question by the other
allottees and the Division Bench has upheld such
a clause in the allotment letter. He would
contend that Section 34B of the Act would come
into operation only after execution of lease-cum-
sale agreement in favour of the allottee for the
purpose of resumption of possession. In the case
at hand, it is his emphatic submission that, there
is no possession handed over to the allottee.
Insofar as the right under the allotment is
concerned, he would submit that the allotment
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
letter has a life of two years which has also
expired as on date. Since there is blatant breach
by the Petitioner of approximately Rs.17/- to
Rs.19/- crores to be paid to the Board, which is
yet to be paid, the learned Advocate General
submits that the petition be dismissed. The
learned Advocate General would further contend,
the Division Bench may not have considered
Section 34B of the Act, but the order of the
learned Single Judge is only on the applicability
of Section 34B of the Act to a pre-lease cum sale
agreement stage. The Division Bench affirms the
order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
Petitioner cannot now contend that the judgment
of the Division Bench is not binding upon this
Court, which interprets verbatim similar contract
of allotment in favour of an allottee.
6.5. By relying on M/s Kamalalayaa Real Estates
LLP's case, he submits that Section 34(b) of
the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as
"Act of 1966") would come into operation only
after execution of lease-cum-sale agreement.
In the present case the possession has not
been handed over to the Petitioner to invoke
Section 34(b) of the Act of 1966. The matter is
only at the stage of allotment, there is no
vested interest in the Petitioner to have the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
very same plot. The Petitioner's interest would
be satisfied so long as there is an allotment of a
plot of 2 acres made to the Petitioner.
6.6. His submission is that there is no particular plot
which is reserved for Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribe categories. Such a reservation
would result in the formation of a ghetto, which
is not the State policy. The State reserves
22.5% of the plots formed in any industrial
area for persons belonging to the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribe which could be
located anywhere in the industrial
estate/layout.
6.7. The claim of the Petitioner that this very plot
viz., plot No.2/69-1 renumbered as plot
No.2/69-A is reserved particularly for members
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe category is completely
misplaced, nor is the land in survey No.95
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
reserved for the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe category.
6.8. His submission is that the respondents being
ready to allot a plot measuring 2 acres, which is
similarly situated the fact that the Petitioner
seeks for cancellation of the allotment made to
respondent No.5 where industry has been put
up, clearly and categorically indicates that the
petition has been filed with a malafide motive
and intent to cause harm, loss and injury to
respondent No.5 and not for protecting the
interests of the Petitioner.
6.9. On that ground, he submits that the above
petition may be dismissed by imposing an
exemplary cost.
7. Sri.Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.5 adopts the arguments of
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty., learned Senior counsel for
Respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that;
7.1. The alternative plot has been allotted to
Respondent No.5 in view of the earlier plot
being under litigation. Respondent No.5 being
ready to implement the project, has
implemented the project, and if any disruption
were to be caused in the working of the
industry, severe harm, loss and injury would be
caused to Respondent No.5.
7.2. He also reiterates that the petition has been
filed malafide to cause harm, loss and injury to
Respondent No.5.
8. Heard Sri.Taranath Pujari, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.K.Shashi Kiran
Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri.Anoop Haranahalli,
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5.
Perused papers.
9. The points that would arise for consideration are;
1. Whether petitioner-allottee of a plot can
claim a vested interest in that particular
plot and insist on the very same plot to be
handed over to the Petitioner?
2. Whether the allotment of plot No.2/69-A
to Respondent No.5 which has been
renumbered from plot No.2/69-1 to
respondent No.5 is proper and correct?
3. What order?
10. I answer above points as follows;
11. Answer to point No.1. Whether petitioner-
allottee of a plot can claim a vested interest in
that particular plot and insist on the very same
plot to be handed over to the Petitioner?
11.1. The Petitioner, as afore indicated, has claimed
that plot No.2/69-1 measuring 8080 square
meters had been allotted to the Petitioner.
Subsequently, the very same plot has been
renumbered as plot No.2/69-A, which had been
allotted to the respondent No.5.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
11.2. The submissions in this regard are manifold, as
indicated supra. Suffice it to say, that the
Petitioner has been insisting only for the
handing over of possession of plot No.2/69-1 of
Adakanahalli Industrial Area and for a lease-
cum-sale agreement to be executed in relation
thereto.
11.3. Though initially the argument advanced was
that the Petitioner was ready for any plot
measuring an extent of 2 acres to be handed
over to the Petitioner. Subsequently,
contending that the Respondent was not
handing over possession of any land, the
Petitioner submitted a representation and filed
the present petition.
11.4. In fact, the Petitioner in his written submission
has categorically stated that as on 01.01.2019,
331 acres having been acquired, 75 acres
having been allocated to SC/ST category. More
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
than 52 acres was available for allotment to
such category and as on 30.05.2025 the
allotment of only 66.65 acres having been
done, there were 6.68 acres available for
allotment to the Petitioner. They have further
contended that as on 09.04.2021, the
allotments made to M/s Suri Industries and M/S
Chamundeshwari Garments, totally measuring
1.2 acres had also been cancelled. Also, an
extent of 2 acres allotted to M/s Byraveshwara
Warehouse had been cancelled, which was
available for allotment to the Petitioner.
11.5. Such being the case, when the Petitioner was
ready for allotment of any land out of 6.68
acres indicated supra or from and out of the
plots cancelled, which had earlier been allotted
to M/s Suri Industries, M/s Chamundeshwari
Garments and M/s Byraveshwara Warehouse.
It is rather strange that the Petitioner, though
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
offered plot No.2/66, which is three plots away
and which measures 2 acres refuses such
allotment and seeks for allotment of land in
Sy.No.2/69-1 in my considered opinion, the
same can only be said to be malafide.
11.6. In fact, the offer made by KIADB was put to the
Petitioner and the Learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner sought for time to obtain
instructions and make his submission, which
was so granted by recording the same in the
order dated 19.11.2025.
11.7. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner had
on instructions contended that the offer made
was a conditional one, when the Sri.K.Shashi
Kiran Shetty., learned Senior counsel appearing
for KIADB had categorically clarified the same
stating that there is no condition for such
allotment. If the Petitioner were willing for such
allotment, the same would be made
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
immediately at the same cost as that made
earlier.
11.8. This also has not been accepted by the
Petitioner, in that background the only
inference that can be drawn is that the
Petitioner wants to cause harm, loss and injury
to Respondent No.5 who has been allotted Plot
No.2/69-1, though now renumbered as Plot
No.2/69-A where Respondent No.5 has set up
its industry. Otherwise, there can be no
particular reason for the Petitioner to insist on
such allotment, when the plot now agreed to be
allotted is only 3 plots away and has the very
same amenities as available to Plot No.2/69-1.
11.9. The entitlement, if at all, of the Petitioner being
only to an extent of 2 acres, the KIADB being
ready to allot 2 acres in plot No.2/66 the
insistence of the Petitioner for allotment and
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
hand over the possession of plot No.2/66 is in
no uncertain terms a malicious one.
11.10. Insofar as reservation of plots is concerned, as
rightly contended by Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty.,
learned Senior counsel appearing for KIADB, no
particular plot can be reserved for a particular
category of persons. It is an overall reservation
which could be made to spread out the said
plots in the entire industrial area so as to
integrate the persons belonging to the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribe category into the
larger industrial project. There is no particular
document which has been placed on record by
the Petitioner indicating that plot No.2/69-1 of
Adakanahalli Industrial Area has been reserved
exclusively for persons belonging to the
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe category.
11.11. In that background, the mere oral submission
of Sri.Tharanath Poojary., learned Senior
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
counsel appearing for the Petitioner, cannot be
accepted that this particular plot has been
reserved for persons belonging to Schedule
Cache and Schedule Tribe category and cannot
be allotted to a person belonging to General
Category, infact in the list of plots relied upon
by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner,
this plot is not so reserved certain other plots
have been demarcated for Schedule Caste,
hence, even as per that document the present
plot is not reserved for Scheduled Caste as
sought to be contended now. The arguments on
this can be clearly and categorically seen to be
contradictory. This being moreso, when the
KIADB has come forward to allot 2 acres of land
in Plot No.2/66, which is 3 plots away.
11.12. In that background, I answer Point No.1
by holding that there is no vested right in
the Petitioner for allotment of Plot
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
No.2/69-1, for possession of that plot only
to be handed over to the Petitioner and/or
for a lease-cum-sale agreement to be
executed in respect of that plot only.
12. Answer to Point No.2; Whether the allotment of
plot No.2/69-A, which has been renumbered
from plot No.2/69-1 to respondent No.5 is
proper and correct?
12.1. It is contended by Sri.Tharanath Poojari.,
learned Senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner that allotment of plot No.2/69-1 had
made in favour of the Petitioner, subsequently
renumbering the same as plot No.2/69-A an
extent of 6022.50 sq.mtr., (roughly 1.50 acres)
had been allotted to respondent No.5 on
29.02.2024, the allotment in favour of the
Petitioner having been made much earlier.
12.2. What is required to be taken into consideration
is that the plot in plot No.142 allotted to
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
respondent No.5 in Immavu Industrial Area
became a subject matter of litigation with the
erstwhile landowners and as such that plot
could not be made available to respondent
No.5.
12.3. Undisputably, an allotment in favour of the
respondent No.5 was made in plot No.142
much earlier and it is only on account of the
litigation that the alternate plot was required to
be allotted to respondent No.5.
12.4. This allotment of alternative plot cannot be
faulted with, moreso when plot No.2/69 initially
measured 3.74 acres and at the request of the
Petitioner that the same was bifurcated into 2
acres and 1.74 acres. Now plot No.2/69-A
measuring 1.50 acres being allotted to
Respondent No.5 cannot be said to cause any
harm or injury to the Petitioner. In fact, there
is an adjacent land which is also available for
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
the Petitioner for allotment. However, the
KIADB taking into consideration the stand of
the Petitioner to cause loss and injury to
Respondent No.5 and to avoid any untoward
incident has chosen to allot two acres in plot
No.2/66 which is three plots away, however the
Petitioner has refused to accept the same as
indicated supra.
12.5. Though initially the allotment of plot No.2/69-1
was made in favour of the Petitioner, the
reason for allotment of the very same land in
favour of Respondent No.5 being on account of
the litigation in respect of the other plot allotted
to the Respondent No.5, in my considered
opinion the actions on part of the KIADB cannot
be faulted with. Moreso, when KIADB is ready
to allot 2 acres of land in plot No.2/66.
12.6. Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that
the allotment made in favour of
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
WP No. 8660 of 2024
HC-KAR
respondent No.5 by KIADB of plot
No.2/69-1 by renumbering it as plot
No.2/69-A measuring 1.5 acres cannot be
found fault with.
13. Answer to point No.3: What Order?
13.1. In view of my answers to point No.1 and 2, I
pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is dismissed.
ii. It is open for the Petitioner to accept the
allotment in plot No.2/66 measuring 2 acres at
the same cost of allotment as that made in
favour of the Petitioner, if the Petitioner so
wishes.
iii. If the Petitioner does not wish to take the said
allotment within 60 days from the receipt of a
copy of this order, the respondents would be
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3438
HC-KAR
free to deal with plot No.2/66 in accordance
with law.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22
