IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.49361 OF 2014 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
M/S. BHORUKA STEELS AND SERVICES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHORUKA STEELS LTD) WHITEFIELD ROAD MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 048 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.R.C.PUROHIT … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD KHANIJA BHAVAN RACECOURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPT. BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. CENTURION SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
NO.85/1, ‘SHIVASHAKTI’, 4TH FLOOR K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARANTAKA UDYOG MITRA KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS [RESPONDENT NO.4 ADDED AS PER COURT ORDER 09.09.2019] (BY SHRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-2;
SHRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SHRI. C.M. POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS FROM R-1 AND R-2 AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD.21.04.2012 AT ANNEX-H ISSUED BY THE R-2 SO FAR IT RELATES TO PLOT NO.40 OF HOODY VILLAGE, DODDENAKUNDI INDUSTRIAL AREA, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 40,430 SQ.MTRS. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri S.N.Murthy, learned Senior advocate for the petitioner and Shri Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned advocate for respondent No.1-KIADB, Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, learned AGA for the State, Shri Vivek Holla, learned advocate for respondent No.3 and Shri C.M.Poonacha, learned advocate for respondent No.4.
2. Learned Senior advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner was allotted a plot No.40 measuring 40,430 Sq.mtrs in Hoody village, Doddenakundi Industrial Area 2nd Stage, Bengaluru South Taluk by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (“KIADB” for short) with a condition to develop it as a park. Petitioner could not develop and maintain it as a park. KIADB resumed the said land and petitioner challenged the same unsuccessfully before this Court in WP.No.12879/1992 dismissed on 18.11.1999. Petitioner challenged the said order in W.A.No.6044/2000, which was also dismissed on the ground of delay by order dated 16.11.2000. Later, KIADB proposed auction of land in question by issuing Auction Notification dated 18.05.2002. Petitioner challenged the same before this Court in WP.No.32150/2002, in which KIADB filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that it will develop the said land as a park and shall not re-allot it to any third party. Thereafter KIADB challenged the said order before the Supreme Court of India in SLP.No. 15461/2010, in which Apex Court permitted the KIADB to make use of the plot in question as an industrial plot. Accordingly, KIADB allotted the said industrial plot in favour of respondent No.3.
3. Shri S.N.Murthy, contended that KIADB has allotted the land in question to third respondent without following procedure known in law. If KIADB had advertised that land was available for allotment, petitioner also could have filed an application seeking allotment. Therefore, his right is adversely effected.
4. In substance, petitioner has questioned the manner in which the plot has been allotted to respondent No.3. No vested right of the petitioner to seek allotment is pointed out. Thus, petitioner’s grievance is that the plot in question has been allotted to third respondent without notifying the same.
5. Admittedly, the plot was permitted to be maintained as a park by the petitioner. Now it has been allotted in favour of third respondent. Therefore, petitioner’s grievance can be challenged only in a public interest litigation.
6. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate submitted that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.4,49,000/- in the year 1980 and prayed that KIADB may be directed to refund the same.
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.1 – KIADB, submitted that petitioner was called upon to receive the said money but petitioner has not chosen to do so. However, KIADB is always prepared to refund the said amount. He submitted that the matter was pending in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India till 2011. However, amount has not been refunded even after disposal of litigation in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
8. In the circumstances, the said amount of Rs.4,49,000/- shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of disposal of SLP.No.15461/2010 till the date of repayment within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV