IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.4180 OF 2016 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
M/S.NEOTECRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.202, KEDIA ARCADE 92, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.BABLU KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O MR.ARJUN PRASAD. ...PETITIONER (By Sri GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR Smt.VIJETHA R NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri VIJAYKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1; SRI BASAVARAJ V.SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 02.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND QUASH THE GOVT. ORDER DATD 07.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITONER, ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Ganesh, learned counsel for Smt.Vijetha.R.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Vijaykumar.A.Patil, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3.
2. In this petition, the petitioner interalia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the communication dated 02.06.2015 as well as Government Order dated 07.08.2014 in so far as it pertains to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allot one acre of land in Plot No.152 of Bengaluru IRT Park near BIAL, Bengaluru to the petitioner on lease cum sale basis for a period of ten years by receiving balance amount towards the cost of the land.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already paid the entire amount towards the cost of the land to Respondent No.2 and 3 and therefore, the relief claimed in Para No.(a) and (b) of the prayer clause does not survive for consideration. It is further submitted that the petitioner be granted the liberty to approach Respondents No.2 and 3 with regard to his grievance for execution of the lease deed and the aforesaid respondents be directed to take an appropriate action with regard to the claim of the petitioner within such time limit as may be fixed by this Court.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in facts of the case, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that incase the petitioner approaches Respondents No.2 and 3 with regard to his grievance within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed by this Court today, Respondents No.2 and 3 shall take into account the representation and shall take a decision with regard to execution of the lease deed in accordance with law in favour of the petitioner by a speaking order within four weeks from the date of such representation.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dh