IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.7128 OF 2014 (GM-KIADB) Between:
Usha.J D/o Jayaramu.A. S/o late Aruvanna Aged about 21 years r/o Antharasanahalli Industrial Area Behind Wipro factory, NH-4 bye-pass Arkere post, Tumkur-572 211. …Petitioner (By Sri D.S.Mali Patil, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Dept. of Trade and Industry Vidhana Soudha Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer KIADB, No.14/3, 2nd Floor Rastrothana Parishath Buidling Nrupathunga Road Bangalore-01 3. The Joint Director District Industrial Centre Tumkur-572 211. …Respondents (By Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA for R1 & R3 Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-K dated 01.1.2014 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.01.2014 passed by respondent No.3 produced at Annexure-‘K’ whereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for allotment of industrial plot.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the grand father of petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.35 of Anthrasanahalli and Sy.No.61/3 of Thimlapura village were the joint family properties of the petitioner’s father and his mother and brother. The said lands were inherited by the joint family through the petitioner’s father late Aruvanna. Thus, the said lands were joint family properties owned by the family members of the petitioner. The said lands were acquired by the State Government for the benefit of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vide notification under KIADB Act. Due to acquisition of the joint family properties of the petitioner by the State Government, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.3 for allotment of industrial plot. Since the request of the petitioner has been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – KIADB has filed statement of objection along with a copy of Possession Certificate dated 03.2.2014 -Annexure-R1 wherein it is stated that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board has allotted an industrial plot in favour of petitioner’s mother.
4. In view of the above nothing survives for consideration.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD