Karnataka High Court
M/S Ranka And Shah Developer (P) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2026
-1-
WA No. 273 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT APPEAL NO.273 OF 2023 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
M/S. RANKA AND SHAH DEVELOPER (P) LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
'RANKA CHAMBERS', NO.31,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI PRADEEP B RANKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VASANTH MADHAVA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Digitally TO GOVERNMENT,
signed by
RAKSHA DEPARTMENT OF
Location: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
High Court of VIKASA SOUDHA,
Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
NO.14/3A, II FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 002
3. M/S. ANVISH VENTURES,
NO.115, 1ST FLOOR,
PRIZM GREYSTONE
-2-
WA No. 273 of 2023
NO.70/1, MILLERS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. VISHNUPRIYA REDDY
4.
M/S. VENUS TECHNOLOGIES,
NO.421, ETTARYKIL CHERIYAN,
5TH PHASE, 3RD CROSS, DOMLUR,
BENGALURU - 560 071
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SMT. GEETHA .S
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KHAMBROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. BASAVA PRABHU S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA AND
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADVOCATES FOR R4)
***
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 16-2-2023 IN WRIT
PETITION NO.18519 OF 2022, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
30-6-2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
WA No. 273 of 2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
The present intra-Court appeal is filed by the writ
petitioner impugning the order dated 16.02.2023 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18519/2022 (the
subject writ petition), whereunder the writ petition filed by
the petitioner was disposed of. The operative portion of
the order is as under:-
i) Writ Petition stands disposed.
ii) The challenge to the impugned order dated
31-12-2013 stands rejected.
iii) The petitioner is held entitled to payment of
compensation for its lands that have been
acquired, along with interest and all other
benefits, in accordance with law.
iv) The compensation shall be paid to the
petitioner within four weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order, if not earlier.
-4-
WA No. 273 of 2023
In the said writ petition, the writ petitioner sought
the following reliefs:-
a. To issue writ of certiorari or any other order,
writ or directions directing respondent
No.2/KIADB to allot the proposed land to the
petitioner which is identified by the respondent
No.2/KIADB in Annexure-K dated 31-12-2013,
being the immovable property bearing plot No.1
measuring 20 acres and plot No.2 measuring
11.50 acres formed by respondent KIADB in
Bengaluru IT Zone, Devanahalli, Bengaluru in
compliance with the order of this Hon’ble Court in
WP No.16367/2007 (LA-KIADB) dated
06.08.2010.
b. By passing such other orders as the Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice.
Since the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition and declined to quash the order dated 31.12.2013
passed by the respondent KIADB and directed the
respondent to pay compensation alongwith interest and all
other benefits for the lands of the petitioner that are
acquired, the appellant/petitioner has preferred this
appeal.
-5-
WA No. 273 of 2023
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge. The
appellant is the petitioner and the respondents are
respondents before the learned Single Judge.
2. The relevant facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
The appellant is a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in the
business of real estate development and related activities.
In the course of its business, the appellant acquired
various converted lands measuring 33 acres 31 guntas
situated in Hunchur/Unsur village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore
North/Yelahanka Taluk. The appellant having acquired said
property were in exclusive possession and enjoyment as
an absolute owner.
The lands owned by the appellant were notified for
acquisition by issuing preliminary notification
No.CI/3/SPQ/2007 dated 09.01.2007 and Final notification
No.CI/266/SPQ/2007 dated 15.05.2007 by the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB/respondent
-6-
WA No. 273 of 2023No.2) under Section 28(1) and under Section 28(4) of
KIAD Act respectively, wherein all 33 acres 31 guntas was
notified for acquisition.
The Government of Karnataka in a proceeding of
17th High Level Clearance Committee dated 28.01.2009
considered the allotting of land in lieu of lands acquired
and vide Government order No.ITD 31 MDA 2009(5)
Bangalore dated 07.12.2009, the Government accorded
approval to the appellant to establish IT/ITES SEZ at
KIADB Layout for IT Sector at Devanahalli. On
22.11.2010, the appellant submitted representation to
respondent No.2-KIADB, seeking allotment of 33 acres 31
guntas of land in lieu of land in the proposed KIADB
IT/ITES Park.
3. On 24.07.2010, in furtherance of the resolution
passed by the State High Level Clearance Committee, the
KIADB issued a letter to the appellant stating that the
Board of the KIADB had approved the layout plan of the
industrial area and the development works in the industrial
-7-
WA No. 273 of 2023
area are under progress and that the allotment letter
indicating the plot numbers and the terms and conditions
of allotment, including the development charges payable
by the appellant, would be intimated in due course. On
06.08.2010, W.P.No.16367/2007 filed by the appellant
before the learned Single Judge, challenging the aforesaid
acquisition notifications, came to be disposed of by this
Court on the basis of the memo dated 28.07.2010,
enclosing the aforesaid letter of the KIADB dated
24.07.2010. In the light of the letter dated 24.07.2010
issued by the KIADB, this Court held that nothing survived
for consideration in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ
petition was disposed of.
4. Thereafter, on 22.11.2010, the appellant wrote a
letter to the Chief Executive Officer & EM, KIADB,
Bangalore seeking to allot 33 acres 31 guntas of land in IT
Sector, Devanahalli, Bangalore for speedy implementation
of its project. Thereafter, the KIADB vide letters dated
07.04.2011 and 16.05.2011(Annexures-E and F) issued
notices to the appellant stating that the applications filed
-8-
WA No. 273 of 2023
by the appellant seeking allotment of alternate lands in
lieu of lands in Sy.Nos.4/1, 6/2, 6/6, 4/2, 7/5A, 7/7B and
8/2 wherein the documents produced in respect of the
aforesaid survey numbers are only Xerox copies and
requested the appellant to produce the original
documents. Hence, the appellant vide letter dated
06.04.2011 vide Annexure-G, produced all the original title
deeds in respect of Sy.Nos.4/4, 6/7, 6/3, 6/5, 4/1, 4/5,
6/2, 7/8, 7/3, 7/5B, 7/1, 7/7A, 113, 7/4A, 115, 7/2, 7/6,
4/6, 6/1, 4/7, 7/4B, 7/5A, 7/7B, 6/6, 4/2, 8/2P1 and 116
and sought for allotment letters. The appellant also
handed over the possession of the lands to an extent of 33
acres 31 guntas to KIADB under a mahazar vide
Annexure-H to that effect. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer vide letter dated 05.09.2012 (vide Annexure-J)
confirmed having acquired and notified in final notification
of the lands of the appellant to an extent of 29 acres
1 gunta in Sy.Nos.4/1, 4/2, 6/2, 4/4, 4/5, 4/7, 6/1, 6/7,
6/3, 6/5, 7/4B, 7/5B, 7/7A, 7/1, 7/6, 7/8, 7/3, 113, 7/4A,
115, 4/6 and 7/2, wherein the sale deeds and EC stood in
-9-
WA No. 273 of 2023
the name of the appellant company and in the notification,
the name of khatedars were mentioned, however, khata
was not transferred/mutated. It was further stated in the
said letter that vide letter dated 08.06.2011, the appellant
company had handed over possession of the lands to the
Board and as per the list, the compensation to the extent
of land measuring 29 acres 01 guntas has not been
received by them and the land in Sy.Nos.7/5A, 7/7B, 6/6
and 4/2 to an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas, the
compensation was paid to the original land owners.
5. Further, on repeated representation of the
appellant, the KIADB/respondent No.2 issued a letter
dated 31.12.2013 (Vide annexure-k) stating that as per
the decision of the 17th SHLCC meeting held on
28.01.2009, the Government vide its order No.ITD 31
MDA 2009(5), Bangalore dated 07.12.2009, has accorded
approval to establish an IT/ITES SEZ at IT Sector,
Devanahalli and has cleared allotment of 33 acres
31 guntas of land by KIADB in lieu of the land to be
– 10 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
surrendered by the appellant to KIADB subject to payment
of development charges as applicable.
6. Further, respondent No.2 vide its letter dated
31.12.2013, demanded Rs.50.00 lakhs per acre as
development charges and Rs.1,24,00,000/- towards 20%
initial deposit for 2.5 acres and in all, respondent No.2
demanded the appellant to pay a sum of
Rs.15,75,75,000/- and on payment, it would consider for
allotment in favour of the appellant in respect of plot No.1
and plot No.2P of IT Park in compact block of 31.5 acres.
7. We have heard Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri B.B. Patil,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-KIADB,
Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.3, Sri Uday Holla, learned
Senior Counsel for Sri. Vivek Holla and
Sri. Chandrashekar S., learned counsels appearing for
respondent No.4, and perused the material available on
record.
– 11 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
8. Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri Vasanth Madhava for the appellant,
vehemently contended that the lands of the appellant were
acquired by KIADB and pursuant to various schemes and
Government orders, the KIADB agreed to allot lands by
filing a memo in a writ petition pending challenging the
acquisition and inspite of the order of this Court, the
KIADB did not issue allotment letter and by the letter
issued on 31.12.2013, it is demanding developmental
charges to consider allotting the lands, which was totally
contrary to undertaking given before this Court. The
development charges demanded was contrary to the
directions of the earlier writ petition and was also not all
reasonable, since the KIADB demanded development
charges which was prevailing in the year 2013, though the
lands had been agreed to be allotted in favour of the
appellant in 2010 and the development charges demanded
were almost equivalent to the land acquisition offered,
without there being no complete development of the
proposed lands as agreed upon.
– 12 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
9. It is contended that the KIADB, in the most
illegal manner, paid compensation to the erstwhile owners
on the basis of duplicate/fabricated documents, despite
the original documents having been submitted by the
appellant and the KIADB without notice to the appellant
has granted compensation. The said act and action of
KIADB was wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of
the KIAD Act and principles of natural justice.
10. It is further contended that the appellant had
surrendered its land in terms of the conditions and the
order of this Court. On the other hand, the KIADB was
acting in the most illegal manner and the proposed lands
were allotted to respondent Nos.3 and 4 with malafide
intentions and for making illegal gains. In that eventuality,
the appellant would be put to irreparable loss, hardship
and injury. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ petition
however, the writ petition came to be disposed of with a
direction to pay compensation to the appellant, though
such a relief was never sought in the writ petition. The
learned Single Judge did not consider the contentions
– 13 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
raised by the appellant regarding the KIADB not acting in
terms of the earlier directions of this Court and demanding
development charges without any legal basis and without
clarifying whether the development charges included the
cost of the land or otherwise.
11. It is further contended that the KIADB has not
cancelled the allotment, since it was the Government
which had granted the allotment and it was only the
Government that could have cancelled the same.
Further, despite the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court
and the Co-ordinate Bench being relied upon, the writ
petition came to be disposed off, declining specific relief as
sought for. The disposal of the writ petition is wholly
erroneous, not based on the facts and circumstances of
the case, and contrary to the documents available on
record. The learned Single Judge also failed to consider
the statement of objections, and the issue relating to the
allotment of developed land in lieu of the acquired land,
the said contention was also not considered. Hence, the
– 14 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant prays to allow the
appeal.
12. Per contra, Sri B. B. Patil, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-KIADB, submits that the learned Single
Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, having
regard to the admitted position that the appellant had
failed to deposit the amount demanded by respondent
No.2. It is contended that nearly 10 years have elapsed
from the date of the allotment, however, the appellant has
not shown any inclination to deposit development charges
as directed by the KIADB. On 03.03.2022, the appellant
requested the KIADB for allotment letter with terms
alongwith payable development charges and also
requested for developing access road from IT Park to
reach Plot No.1 and 2P. On the other hand, on
06.05.2022, the KIADB sent a letter to the Member
Secretary, SLWCC stating that, in view of non-payment of
development charges, the matter requires to be placed
before SLWCC. Despite the appellant being aware of these
communications and non payment of development charges
– 15 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
leads to cancellation of approval for the proposed
allotment, the appellant has not paid the development
charges. Consequent to the communication of KIADB, the
matter was placed before SLWCC and a decision was taken
to cancel the approval for the proposed allotment of Plot
No.1 in favour of the appellant on 03.09.2022 vide
Annexure-R4.
13. It is further contended that respondent Nos.3
and 4 made applications to the KIADB for allotment of
lands, accordingly, respondent No.2 allotted 10 acres of
land each in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 out of the
land in question. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly
dismissed the writ petition, and the said order does not
warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.
14. Sri. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 vehemently contended that
since the appellant failed to pay the requisite development
charges from the year 2013 and has not taken any steps
for development of plot and all contentions taken by the
– 16 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
appellant in other writ petitions have not been complied
with and thus, the writ petition filed by the appellant came
to be dismissed on 16.02.2023.
15. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile,
i.e. on 23.02.2023, respondent No.3 filed application
seeking allotment of land to the KIADB. Thus, the SHLCC
granted/allotted 10 acres specifically in plot No.1 on
18.03.2023 vide Annexure-R3A and accordingly,
respondent No.3 made payment of 10% of land cost being
Rs.2.8 crores. Thus, on 23.03.2023, KIADB issued
allotment letter allotting plot No.1 to respondent No.3 vide
Annexure-R3B. On 14.09.2023, respondent No.3 paid
Rs.25.83 crores to respondent No.2 KIADB. Hence, on
05.02.2024, confirmation letter of allotment was issued to
respondent No.3 by KIADB on 06.02.2024. Possession
certificate has been issued in the name of respondent No.3
and on 08.02.2024, KIADB executed lease-cum-sale
agreement in favour of respondent No.3 on payment of
total consideration amount of Rs.28,70,08,995/- and
– 17 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
KIADB has acted well within its statutory powers in having
cancelled the proposed allotment made to the appellant.
16. The KIADB has no power to make allotment to
the appellant, as the same runs contrary to Regulation 10
of KIADB Regulations, 1969, which states that KIADB may
make allotment in favour of the person who is likely to
start production within a reasonable period. Further,
Regulation 10(d) of KIADB Regulations, 1969, states that
failure to execute the agreement or successfully pay sums
demanded by the Executive Board would render the
allottee to have declined allotment. Respondent No.3, on
the other hand, has taken all necessary steps including
payment of charges of relevant NOC and letter obtained
except that the construction activities cannot start on
account of interim orders passed by this Court. Further, in
compliance with the directions of the learned Single Judge,
KIADB has already passed general award and deposited
compensation of Rs.4,22,32,000/- in the Civil Court, in
order to pay compensation to the land losers.
– 18 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
17. It is further contended that respondent No.3 was
allotted the land in question after dismissal of the writ
petition on 16.02.2023 and 18.03.2023. Hence, there is no
merit in the appeal of the appellant. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the same.
18. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.4, vehemently contended
that since the appellant declined to comply the order of
the Court and failed to deposit amount, as directed by
respondent No.2 KIADB, the KIADB did not execute the
lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the appellant. The
writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16367/2007. In the
meanwhile, on 18.03.2023, respondent No.4 M/s. Venus
Technologies, the impleading applicant now arrayed as
respondent No.4 approached the State Government for
allotment of land through KIADB for setting up integrated
IT/ITES park and residential-retailed mixed use project
with an investment of Rs.249.70 crores, generating
employment of about 700 persons. Hence, on 23.03.2023,
– 19 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
KIADB allotted 10 acre of land in plot No.1P in phase I of
IT defence Aerospace Park, IT Sector, Industrial Area,
Bengaluru. The impleading applicant respondent No.4 was
directed to pay a premium of Rs.280 lakhs per acre plus
5% extra cost for plot facing 45feet road width or more.
Now respondent No.4 has paid the amount of advance of
Rs.2,80,50,000/- on the date of allotment and an amount
of Rs.13.00 crores was paid on 19.11.2025 as directed by
the KIADB. Therefore, respondent No.4 has complied the
directions of KIADB and accordingly, allotted the land in
question. The conduct of the appellant is such that it has
not paid a single rupee since 2009 and he is seeking
allotment of land contrary to the orders passed by this
Court. Thus, the appeal is without any merit and is liable
to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
19. In view of the submissions made by the learned
Senior counsel for the appellant, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State, learned
counsel for respondent No.2-KIADB, learned Senior
– 20 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
counsels for respondent Nos.3 and 4, the following point
that would arise for our consideration is as under:-
Whether the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge requires interference at the
hands of this Court?
20. The essential factual matrix is undisputed,
inasmuch as, the appellant company and its promoter had
purchased the extent of about 33 acres 21 guntas in
various survey numbers in Hunchur/Unsur village, Jala
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka. The said lands
had been converted into non-agricultural and residential
purpose. The appellant had intended to establish IT/ITES
SEZ over the lands. In the mean-while, i.e., on
09.01.2007, a preliminary notification was issued under
Section 28(1) of KIAD Act proposing to acquire the land of
the appellant and on 15.05.2007, final notification came to
be issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act acquiring land
of the appellant.
– 21 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
21. Being aggrieved by the preliminary and final
notifications, the appellant challenged both the
notifications in Writ Petition No.16367 of 2007
(LA-KIADB). However, the Government passed the order
resolving to allot 33 acres and 31 guntas to the appellant
in IT Park in lieu of lands surrendered by it, subject to
payment of development charges vide its Letter dated
07.12.2009 as per Annexure-B.
The contents of Annexure-B are as under:
“PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA
Sub: Approval of the project proposal of, M/S
RANKA AND SHAH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
TO ESTABLISH “SEZ FOR IT/ITES” AT
HUNCHUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE
URBAN DISTRICT.
READ Proceedings of 17TH State High Level
Clearance Committee (SHLCC) Meeting held on
28.1.2009.
PREAMBLE
M/s Ranka and Shah Developers Pvt. Ltd., is a
Private Limited Company incorporated under
Indian Companies Act, 1956, registered with
Registrar of Companies, Bangalore on 4th April
1996.
The RANKA group is a Bangalore based
conglomerate with interests in real estate
– 22 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
development, infrastructure projects, power
generation, retailing contracting and engineering
& consultancy, interior housing finance, InfoTech
solutions, education, Healthcare, hospitality,
leisure and entertainment, jewellery, textiles and
silks- drawing synergy from the diversity.
RANKA group is one of the renowned
groups in the field of property development since
the 70’s. The company has developed over 30
projects in Bangalore and has over clientele over
2500 satisfied Ranka Home Owners, of which
over 1000 are NRIs.
In the proposal submitted for the 17TH
SHLCC, the Company had requested to approve
the project for establishment of “SEZ for
IT/ITES” in 33 acres 31 guntas of own land and
for allotment of said land through KIADB after
payment of required development charges. The
project proposes to provide employment to
about 7000 persons and proposed to invest
Rs.430.00 crores.
The Company informed the committee that
out of 33 acres 31 guntas, the land measuring
26 acres 01 guntas is registered in the name of
the company and also converted into residential
purpose from agricultural during 2005. The
remaining 7 acres 30 guntas has been registered
in the name of Mr. Pradeep Ranka, one of the
promoters Director of the company.
It has been informed to the committee that
a Court case is pending in the Hon’ble High Court
on the said property. The promoters have
approached the Court against the acquisition by
KIADB and STATUS-QUO granted by the Hon’ble
High Court against the acquisition. BIAPPA have
informed that the proposed lands are in Special
Agriculture Zone as per Interim Master Plan of
– 23 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
BIAPPA and hence the proposed activity is not
permitted.
KIADB in their letter dated 26.3.2008 has
informed that the extent of one acre 34 guntas
in Sy. No.116 of Hunchur village is not under
KIADB acquisition process and remaining extent
of land is under acquisition and the Hon’ble High
Court has given a stay and ordered for STATUS-
QUO.
The Company in their letter 30.10.2008
has submitted before the Committee the
following points and requested the committee to
approve the proposal.
1. The Company will consider withdrawing their
writ petition before the Honorable High Court of
Karnataka, in case the Government agrees to
approve the application for SEZ in the said land
by payment of development fees to KIADB.
2. Requested to approve the project proposal
subject to obtaining of environmental clearance
so that to enable the Company to approach the
Government of India for obtaining approval of
SEZ (as it takes nearly 3 to 6 months).
3. The above said proposed land has been
already converted for residential purposes and
has obtained clearance from pollution control
board for setting up of SEZ for IT/ITES.
Maps of the lands involved in this project as well
as KIADB Aerospace layout were perused by the
Committee. The Committee observed that the
project proponent may be given an extent of 33
acres 31 guntas of land in the KIADB layout for
IT sector at Devanahalli. The project proponent
should pay development charges for this land.
The committee has indicated that it is difficult to
allot the same land as requested by the project
– 24 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
proponent within the layout because the layout
is already designed. The project proponent
agreed for the same. The Committee noted that
land acquired by KIADB will be for industrial use.
Hence, the issue of present zoning will not be
relevant.
The Committee observed that water can be
supplied to the project only after 2012. The
project proponents informed that
implementation of the project would take about
3 years and hence it is acceptable if water is
made available after 2012.
The Committee also noted that the project
proponent will withdraw the Writ Petition filed
against the acquisition.
Considering the above points the committee
after detailed discussions, approved the proposal
to establish “IT/ITES SEZ” and recommended to
grant infrastructure facilities and extend
incentives and concessions.
Hence the following order:
GOVERNMENT ORDER NO ITD 31 MDA
2009[5], BANGALORE DATED: 07-12-2009
In the circumstances explained in the Preamble,
Government are pleased to accord approval to
M/s Ranka and Shah Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
establish “IT/ITES SEZ”, at KIADB layout for IT
Sector at Devenahalli with an investment of Rs
130 crores and extended the following
infrastructure facilities, incentives and
concessions.
INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES:
LAND: The Committee resolved to permit the
company to establish the unit in 33 acres 31
– 25 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
guntas of land to be allotted by KIADB in the
layout for IT sector at Devanahalli in lieu of the
land he will surrender to KIADB. The project
proponent shall pay development charges to
KIADB for the same.
POWER: 10 MW to be serviced by BESCOM.
WATER: 3,50,000 lpd of water to be supplied by
KIADB/BWSSB by 2012.
INCENTIVES & CONCESSIONS:
As per Millennium IT Policy
Environment: The promoters to obtain CFE and
CFO from KSPCB and Environmental Clearance
from State. No works shall commence prior to
obtaining EC, as per prevailing law.
Employment: The Company shall prepare a
plan for development of human resource
required for the project, train local people and
provide employment to these trained local youth
and comply with Government policy of
employment to local people. A copy of human
resource development plan shall be sent to the
Director, Dept of IT & BT for monitoring.
Others: The promoter shall take all statutory
and other necessary Clearances including GOI
and shall submit milestones/progress in
Implementation of the project regularly, which
will be monitored by the Departments
concerned.
By Order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka
Sd/-
[M.V. Krishnamurthy]
Under Secretary to Government
Department of Information
– 26 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
Technology, Bio Technology and
Science & Technology.”
22. On 24.07.2010, the KIADB by its letter informed
the appellant that as per the meeting held by SHLCC dated
28.01.2009, it has approved the project of the appellant
and recommended the KIADB to allot 33 acres and 31
guntas of land in IT Park Industrial Area, near Devanahalli,
in lieu of the land which will be surrendered by the
appellant to the KIADB, which will be free from all kind of
encumbrances. In the said letter, the KIADB stated that
the appellant should not claim any compensation for the
lands to be surrendered and also subject to withdrawing
Writ Petition No.16367/2007. In the said letter, the KIADB
also stated that the terms and conditions of the allotment
including the development charges payable by the
appellant will be issued in due course.
23. In turn, the appellant submitted a letter dated
22.11.2010 (Annexure-B) to the KIADB informing about
the disposal of Writ Petition No.16367/2007 and also
– 27 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
requested the KIADB to allot 33 acres and 31 guntas of
land in IT sector of Devanahalli.
24. Later, as per the proceedings of KIADB dated
29.03.2010, in 299th Board Meeting in Subject No.14,
whereby the Board of KIADB discussed the issue regarding
development charges in respect of IT/BT Park industrial
area. As per Annexure-R1, the development charges was
arrived at Rs.21,328 lakhs for 1179.55 acres. Therefore,
the appellant has contended that the development charges
would be Rs.21,328 lakhs divided by 1179.55 acres equals
to Rs.18 lakhs per acre. Therefore, the development
charges as in the year 2010 was only Rs.18 lakh per acre.
Further, the cost of underground and drainage usually was
decided to be levied on the land cost. Since the appellant
was the land owner and was seeking allotment of 33 acres
of its own land in lieu of compensation, the land cost
would not affect. On 24.07.2010, the KIADB issued letter
to the appellant indicating decision to allot 33 acres and
31 guntas in lieu of lands of the appellant that was
acquired, however, subject to withdrawal of Writ Petition
– 28 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
No.16367 of 2007 filed by the appellant. Therefore, on
06.08.2010, the aforesaid petition was disposed of on the
basis of the memo dated 28.07.2010. Thereafter, the
original title deeds were handed over by the appellant to
the KIADB with a request to issue the allotment letter vide
Annexure-G dated 04.06.2011 and the possession of the
lands were handed over by the appellant to the KIADB
vide Annexure-H.
25. On 31.12.2013, the KIADB issued a letter,
whereby the KIADB allotted 31.5 acres to the appellant.
Further, the KIADB sought development charges of
Rs.50 lakh per acre in respect of 29.02 acres and land
costs of Rs.2.5 crore per acre in respect of 2.49 acres. It is
contended that the calculation of Rs.50 lakh per acre
towards development charges is totally contrary to the
decision dated 29.03.2010 of the KIADB, which reveals
that development charges in total was Rs.18 lakh per acre
only. Therefore, after 3 years i.e. on 27.07.2016, the
appellant made representation to the KIADB contending
that development charges should be as per rates in 2010
– 29 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
and also to make changes for the purpose of development
vide Annexure-L. Once again on 03.01.2017, the appellant
reiterating its request and also specifically informing that
though it had not surrendered the possession and
documents of title, the erstwhile land owner of Survey
No.115 measuring 1 acre and 29 guntas had approached
the KIADB for compensation and the KIADB had paid the
compensation amount without verifying the records. Thus,
the appellant intimated that the KIADB was paying
compensation to erstwhile owners to an extent of 4 acre
and 30 guntas in Survey No.113 and therefore, requesting
not to pay the compensation amount to the erstwhile
landowners vide Annexure-N dated 28.06.2017. The
appellant once again submitted representation
dated 27.02.2018 to the KIADB and requested it that
though it had surrendered the land without receiving
compensation in the year 2011, it had not received any
allotment letter from the KIADB. Thus, it requested the
KIADB to issue the allotment letter and that the appellant
would pay the full payment without charging any interest
– 30 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
on development charges. Once again on 05.07.2018, the
appellant submitted its representation to the KIADB
reiterating its request and also mentioning about
compensation being dispersed to erstwhile landowners to
an extent of 1.29 acres. The appellant also requested for
issuance of allotment letter and to give 180 days time to
make payment without interest. After four years, the
appellant submitted another representation dated
03.03.2022 to the KIADB reiterating its request for
issuance of allotment letter without insisting for
development charges Vide Annexure-R.
26. Later, on 11.07.2022, the Karnataka Udyog Mitra
addressed a letter to the KIADB stating about the
background facts and directing KIADB to decide the
representation of the appellant in accordance with Rules.
Thus, the appellant filed one more Writ Petition in Writ
Petition No.18519 of 2022 challenging the order dated
31.12.2013 vide Annexure-K.
27. The perusal of the material available on record, it
clearly demonstrates that the appellant surrendered its
– 31 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
land to the State, which in turn had passed orders under
Section 28(8) of the KIAD Act, 1966. After surrendering
the land to the respondent KIADB, the appellant made a
representation to allot 30 acres of land in Plot No.1 of IT
Sector and issue demand letter for payment of
development charges. Accordingly, the KIADB allotted the
land and insisted for developmental charges in terms of
Section 14 of the KIAD Act. The entire tentative cost of
acquisition and the development of an industrial layout are
taken while determining the tentative cost of allotment to
the project proponent. Pursuant to the completion of the
enhancement proceedings as regards acquisition cost,
after completion of full development works, in the said
industrial area, the final cost of allotment can be
ascertained and the difference in final price and allotted
price shall be collected from the project proponent by
giving considerable time. Therefore, the allotment cost and
development charges as intimated to the appellant is not
based on any whims and fancies of the respondent KIADB
and it appears to be based on scientific and time tested
– 32 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
method and in terms of board resolution dated
29.03.2010.
28. The contention of the appellant that the
development charges is highly excessive and not as was
contemplated during 2010, when the lands of the
appellant were acquired, is totally incorrect, as the
development charges levied at the rate of Rs.50.00 lakhs
per acre has been arrived during 2010 itself, which is
evident as per the board resolution dated 29.03.2010. The
appellant had accepted at point of time that they will pay
the development charges and denying the rate at which
the said development charges is levied are lame excuses
made out by the appellant. All the costs as collected are
tentative in nature and the same shall be finally
determined at the time of execution of sale deed after
completion/implementation of the proposed project. The
record further demonstrates that the appellant
surrendered its land by letter dated 05.09.2012 issued by
Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB and thereafter the
KIADB demanded development charges as well as cost of
– 33 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
the land of 2.49 acres. However, till date, the appellant did
not deposit the said amount. On the other hand, it has
interpreted that the development charges is excessive.
29. On the other hand, the KIADB contended that the
project of the appellant had been cancelled in the State
Level Single Window Clearance Committee Meeting held
on 03.09.2022 and the KIADB had resolved to pay
compensation. Under the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Act (KIAD Act), the land losers are generally
liable to pay development charges and the proportionate
cost of the developed land when seeking alternative or
pre-allotment. Once the land is acquired and possession is
surrendered, it vests absolutely with the State
Government/KIADB free from all encumbrances. The
erstwhile landowner loses original title rights and becomes
entitled only to statutory compensation. The land losers do
not have an inherent, automatic right to receive
alternative developed land at concessional rate, unless
there is an express, government approved land loser
sharing policy, such as, the 99-year lease or allotment
– 34 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
schemes. When KIADB allots certain lands to land losers
under a designated scheme or concession, the allottee is
obliged to pay the development charges, maintenance
charges and the Board’s prescribed premium.
30. Section 14 of the Act contemplates general
powers of the Board. As per the this section, failure to pay
the betterment charges within stipulated time constitute
breach of allotment conditions under Section 14(1) (f) (ii)
of the Act, which reads as under:-
14(1) (f) (ii). ‘To modify or rescind such
allotments, including the rights and power to
evict the allottees concerned on breach of any of
the terms or conditions of their allotment’.
31. Under KIAD Act, payment of development
charges are mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions ruled that once the land is acquired
and declared as an industrial area, it falls under the
exclusive purview of the KIADB. A Co-ordinate Bench in
catena of decisions has held that an allottee cannot seek
an exemption from development charges, just because
they have not utilised specific amenities such as park or
– 35 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
internal roads in the industrial area. In Bangalore
International Airport Area Planning Authority v.
Birla Super Bulk Terminal & Others, reported in
(2019) 12 SCC 572, the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed
that special enactments like the KIAD Act prevail over
general planning laws (like Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act) regarding development in allotted areas. In
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board &
Anr. v. M/s. Prakash Dal Mill & others reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 714, the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that
while the Board has the authority to collect the
development charges, it cannot arbitrarily or unreasonably
hike the final price of the demised premises. The purpose
of the KIAD Act, as seen from the preamble of the Act, is
to make special provisions for securing the establishment
or industrial areas in the State and generally to promote
the establishment and orderly development of the
industries therein, and for that purpose to establish
industrial areas development board. The preamble of the
KIAD Act reads as under:
– 36 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
“An Act to make special provision for securing the
establishment of industrial areas in the State of
Karnataka and generally to promote the establishment
and orderly development of industries therein, and for
that purpose to establish an Industrial Areas
Development Board and for purposes connected with
the matters aforesaid.
Whereas it is expedient to make a special provision for
securing the establishment of industrial areas in the
State of Karnataka and generally to promote the
establishment and the orderly development of
industries in such industrial areas, and for that
purpose to establish an industrial areas development
board and for purposes connected with the matters
aforesaid.”
32. As per Section 27 of the KIAD Act, the provisions
of the Act shall apply to such areas from such dates as
have been notified by the State Government under Sub-
Section (3) of Section 1. Section 47 is the non-obstante
clause of KIAD Act which reads as under:
“47. Effect of provisions inconsistent with other
laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law.”
33. By careful reading of the provisions of both the
provisions of the KIAD Act, it is seen that the object of
KIAD Act is to make special provisions for securing the
establishment of industrial areas in the State and to
– 37 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
generally promote the establishment and orderly
development of the industries.
34. In the present case, by way of letter dated
31.12.2013, the terms and conditions of allotment were
informed. This had two portions, firstly, 29.02 acres to be
allotted after payment of development charges and
2.49 acres to be allotted at the prevailing rate. If it is the
contention of the appellant that development charges are
not to be paid, then the appellant could have paid the
money towards allotment of 2.49 acres. Since it was a
composite allotment, the entire allotment stands
cancelled. The development charges were payable in 2013
in respect of one portion of land and the allotment of land
required payment of charges. Since it was a composite
allotment, the non-payment has rendered the allotment
null and void. The same principles would apply as far as to
any other allottee. The appellant does not get a better
right as a consequence of the orders of this Court, as all
the orders were restricted to only a portion of the land.
– 38 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
35. The records further reveal that the appellant was
originally proposed to be allotted the subject lands in lieu
of compensation payable as against acquisition of their
properties in Hunchur Village for which a demand note was
given. However, there are several disputes with respect to
ownership and title of the lands that the allotment of the
appellant is claiming title over in Hunchur Village. In
respect of certain properties, compensation has been
dispersed to the landowners, which is admitted by the
appellant in its letter dated 03.01.2017. Insofar as Survey
No.115 of Hunchur Village measuring 1 acre 29 guntas
which was surrendered in lieu of alternate land, the
erstwhile owner obtained an order under the PTCL Act
cancelling the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
Pursuant to the direction of the Assistant Commissioner,
compensation was issued to the erstwhile land owner.
Thus, the compensation in respect of 4 acres 30 guntas of
land (1 acre 1 gunta in Survey No.6/6, 1 acre 17 guntas in
Survey No.7/7B, 1 acre 33 guntas in Survey No.7/5A and
19 guntas in Survey No.4/2) was disbursed to original
– 39 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
landowners in 2008 itself. The appellant is actively
litigating to assert title over certain acquired properties.
The trial Court in Original Suit No.818/2008 c/w Original
Suit No.126/2007 has already passed a decree against the
appellant and held title in favour of some other
landowners. Therefore, the appellant is contesting the
same in Regular First Appeal No.2461 of 2023.
36. It is also learnt that pursuant to the order of the
learned Single Judge in impugned writ petition, the KIADB
has passed a general award and deposited the
compensation amount of Rs.4,22,36,484/- with the
reference Court for adjudication of title with respect to
properties in Hunchur Village. Therefore, the appellant
lacks the locus standi for filing the instant appeal. Since
the appellant failed to pay the development charges in
time, i.e. even after a decade, the KIADB allotted 10 acres
of land in Plot No.1 at Phase-1 of Hi-Tech, Defence and
Aerospace Park(IT) Sector, Industrial Area in favour of
respondent No.3 and Plot No.1-P at Phase-1 of Hi-Tech
Defence and Aerospace Park(IT) Sector Industrial Area in
– 40 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
favour of respondent No.4. Pursuant to the decision taken
at the 138th State Level Single Window Clearance
Committee (SLSWCC) Meeting held on 07.03.2023,
in-principle approval was given through the Government
Order dated 18.03.2023, after which the allotment letters
were given by respondent KIADB in favour of respondent
Nos.3 and 4 on 23.03.2023. A confirmatory letter of
allotment was issued on 05.02.2024 and the possession of
land was handed over to respondent No.3 on 06.02.2024
vide Annexure-R3. The record further reveals that
respondent No.3 has paid a sum of Rs.2,80,50,000/- on
18.03.2023 to KIADB towards 10% of the cost of the land
as premium and EMD. Further, the balance 90% of the
cost of the land amounting to Rs.25,83,00,000/- was paid
to KIADB on 14.09.2023 and Rs.7,00,000/- was paid on
09.11.2023. In total, respondent No.3 has paid a total
consideration of Rs.28,70,08,995/-, against which, the
KIADB has registered a lease deed on 08.02.2024.
Respondent No.3, in addition, has also paid a stamp duty
of Rs.1,43,60,950/- on the registered deed vide
– 41 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
Annexure-R3-E. The khata also reflects that Plot No.1 has
been encumbered on lease to respondent No.3 vide
Annexure-R3-J. Respondent No.3 has also received
demand of Rs.1,10,402/- towards land tax on 11.07.2024.
In light of the same, respondent No.3 has better right in
law.
37. It is pertinent to note that neither in the
SWLCC’s order or the order of this Court, there is a
mention of the exact land proposed to be allotted to get
the land allotted to the appellant.
38. Insofar as respondent No.4 is concerned, on
18.03.2023, respondent No.4-M/s.Venus Technologies Ltd.
approached the State Government for allotment of land
through KIADB for setting up integrated IT/ITES park and
residential retail mixed use project with an investment of
Rs.249.70 crores generating an employment of about 700
persons vide Annexure-A1. Therefore, on 23.03.2023, the
KIADB allotted 10 acres of land in Plot No.1P in Phase 1 of
Hi-Tech Defense Aerospace Park, IT Sector Industrial Area,
Bengaluru. Respondent No.4 was directed to pay premium
– 42 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
of Rs.2,80,000/- per acre plus 5% extra cost for plot
facing more than 45 feet road width. Therefore,
respondent No.4 has paid amount of advance of
Rs.2,80,50,000/- on the date of allotment and amount of
Rs.13,00,00,000/- was deposited on 19.11.2025 as
directed by the KIADB.
39. In the present case, admittedly, the lease-cum-
sale agreement was neither executed in favour of the
appellant nor has the appellant commenced the production
in compliance with the terms and conditions of the letter of
allotment. More importantly, the appellant has not paid
the development charges to the KIADB. It is pertinent to
note that the KIAD Act has been enacted to promote the
establishment and orderly development of industries. The
allotment of industrial land in industrial areas is for the
purpose of industrial development of the State. Further, in
terms of the conditions of allotment, the appellant was
also required to commence production within 24 weeks
from the date of taking possession of the land. Although,
– 43 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
the appellant was put in possession of the property, the
appellant has not commenced the production till date.
40. The aspect of allotment of land is stipulated in
Regulation 10 of the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board Regulations, 1969 (for short,
‘Regulations’) which has been made in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 41(2)(B) of the KIAD Act,
which reads as under:
“41. Power to make regulations.-
(1) The Board, may, with the previous approval of
the State Government, by notification make
regulations consistent with this Act and the rules
made thereunder, to carry out the purposes of this
Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such regulations
may provide for,-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) the terms and conditions under
which the Board may dispose of land;”
41. Regulation 10 of the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board Regulations, 1969, reads as under:
“10. Allotment.- (a) The Board, on being satisfied that
the person, firm or company who has made an
application is likely to start production within a
– 44 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
reasonable period, and is not one which is declared
obnoxious under Regulation 14 may make an allotment
in his/their favour;
(b) The Board may constitute subcommittees for
considering allotment of plots and also delegate its
power to the Executive Member, if necessary;
(c) The Executive Member shall notify such applicant to
whom an allotment is made to execute the agreement
in Form 3 or 4 or 5 as the case may be with such
modification as may be necessary in each case on such
date, time and place as may be fixed by the Executive
Member and to pay the consideration for the occupancy
of the land as fixed by the Board within time fixed by
the Board;
(d) Failure to execute the agreement or to pay the sums
demanded by the Executive Member as per notice given
under Regulation 10(c) will render the allottee to have
deemed to have declined the allotment;
(e) The Board or with the authority of the Board, the
Executive Member will have the discretion to grant
extension of time for complying with the terms of the
notice issued under Regulation 10(c) with or without
payment of interest at 9% on the sums payable in
terms of the said notice for the extended period.”
42. It is clear from a plain reading of Regulation
10(d), that failure to execute the agreement will render
the allottee to have deemed to have declined the
allotment. It is also relevant to note Regulation 15 of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Regulations,
1969, which reads as under:
“15. Allottee as a Licensee.-Till the agreement for
lease, sale or lease-cum-sale is executed, the allottee
will be considered as a mere licensee who shall have
– 45 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
licence and authority only to enter upon the land
allotted to him and to start construction of buildings or
works and will have no power to legally alienate his
interest except to the extent allowed by the Board for
raising loans. No sub-division of the plot will be allowed
without the permission of the Board given in writing.”
43. Further, a plain reading of Regulation 15 would
indicate that prior to the execution of the agreement, the
allottee will be considered as a mere licensee and it is
entitled to enter upon the land allotted to start
construction.
44. In the present case, the appellant has been put
in possession of the subject land as a licensee only for the
limited purpose of commencing construction. Further,
default of the licensee in executing the agreement is to be
constituted as the allottee having declined the allotment,
even more than ten years, the appellant has not paid the
development charges as directed by the KIADB.
45. Therefore, the payments not having been paid in
terms of the letter of allotment, cancellation of the
allotment is automatic and issuance of notice under
Section 34B of the KIAD Act does not arise. A similar view
– 46 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
is observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.533 of 2021 disposed of on 19.08.2021.
46. With regard to the contention put forth on behalf
of the appellant that the procedure under Section 34B of
KIAD Act was required to be followed and the appellant
was required to be given notice before the allotment was
cancelled, it is pertinent to note that the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.279 of 2024 decided
on 12.01.2024 held that Section 34B of KIAD Act is to be
followed only after execution of the lease-cum-sale
agreement.
47. Section 34B of KIAD Act reads as under:
34B. Resumption of the possession of premises
including the residential tenements on breach of
terms and conditions of lease or holding without
authority.-
(1) Where the Board is of the opinion that an allottee
of any premises or part thereof or residential
tenement in an industrial area or industrial estate has
violated any of the terms or conditions of allotment or
holds it without any authority it may, without
prejudice to Section 25 give notice to such allottee and
Banks or Financial Institutions, in whose favour the
Board has permitted the mortgage or leasehold rights
of the premises, or residential tenement specifying the
breaches of the terms and conditions of the allotment
calling upon the allottee to remedy such breaches
within a time stipulated in the notice.
– 47 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
(2) If the allottee fails to remedy the breaches within
the time so stipulated, the Board shall serve a notice
upon the allottee under intimation to such Bank or
Financial Institutions to show cause within thirty days
from the date of service of notice, why the possession
of the premises or part thereof or residential tenement
should not be resumed.
(3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the
allottee and after giving him an opportunity of being
heard, the Board may pass such orders, as it deems
fit.
(4) Where the Board passes an order under sub-
section (3), for resuming possession of the premises
or part thereof or residential tenement in the industrial
area it may, by notice in writing, order any allottee to
surrender and deliver possession thereof to the Board
or any person duly authorised in this behalf within the
date specified in the notice.
(5) If any allottee refuses to surrender or deliver the
possession of the premises or part thereof or
residential tenement within the time specified in the
notice, the Board or any officer authorised by it in this
behalf may resume the possession of the premises or
part thereof or residential tenement free from all
encumbrances and for that purpose may use force as
may be necessary. [Section 34B inserted by Act No.19
of 2000 w.e.f. 25-5-2000].”
48. Therefore, Section 34B of the KIAD Act clearly
indicates that the section is applicable for resumption of
possession for breach in the terms and conditions of lease
or holding without authority. The said provision indicates a
situation, where the allottee has been put in possession of
the property and an agreement of lease has been
executed in favour of the allottee. However, in the present
– 48 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
case, no such agreement or lease has been executed. The
said provision also contemplates a situation of holding
possession without authority, which is not so in the
present case as the allottee has been put in possession
pursuant to the letter of allotment and is bound by the
terms and conditions of the said letter of allotment.
Further, as noted above, the failure of the appellant to
have got the lease-cum-sale agreement executed is to be
understood as the appellant having deemed to have
declined the allotment.
49. As the appellant failed to deposit the
development charges to the KIADB, the SWLCC allotted 10
acres of land each in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4,
respectively. On the other hand, now, by virtue of lease
deed and possession being given, respondent Nos.3 and 4
have a right in respect of the property allotted to them,
respectively.
50. On the other hand, the appellant is not able to
seek alternative land as it has not complied with condition
for more than ten years under which the proposed
– 49 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
allotment was sought to be made. The appellant has no
right in respect of these lands and it can be allotted any
other land, if he makes an application to the KIADB.
51. Further, there is no exchange of lands as the
KIADB is required to handover industrial plots which have
electricity and water connections, road and drainage apart
from other amenities which entails additional cost, which is
claimed as development charges.
52. The contention of the appellant is that it is ready
to pay developmental charges of the year 2010 and not of
the year 2013, as the same has no merit consideration.
The order of KIADB was clear that terms and conditions of
allotment including development charges will be informed
in due course i.e. as and when they are liable to be paid.
It is to be noted that as alternative land is being given, the
development charges becomes payable only when the
plots are ready.
53. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant disentails
it from claiming any discretion at the hands of the Court
– 50 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
and there is no violation of law, unreasonableness or
irrationality to claim interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
54. Therefore, the law mandates that, the appellant
was entitled to alternative land, provided it fulfilled the
conditions, but the appellant failed to comply with the
conditions. There is no violation of law or irrationality in
the decision of the Committee to cancel the allotment
made in favour of the appellant and allot the land to
respondent Nos.3 and 4, respectively.
55. The development of the State cannot be kept at
abeyance till the time appellant’s issues were sorted out.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.16367 of 2007 was conditional upon the
appellant having title to the properties. There is no
violation of the order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch
as the appellant failed to fulfill the underlying basis of the
consent order.
– 51 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
56. The perusal of the material on record clearly
demonstrates that there are multiple disputes in relation
to the entire parcel of land. When the order of cancellation
of allotment is not challenged before this Court, the order
of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition
while protecting the rights of the appellant to seek
compensation by directing passing of general award
cannot be altered.
57. The appellant even after twelve years of disposal
of Writ Petition No.16367 of 2007 clings upon the said
order and submits that the development charges that are
asked for were contrary to the order and therefore, it
cannot form a part of allotment letter. Such
representations come about twelve years after disposal of
the petition and almost close to nine years, after
impugned communication. However, same has been
replied to by the Board on 26.04.2022, observing that
unless development charges were paid, no allotment in
favour of the appellant could be made as the Court did not
observe that development charges need not be paid.
– 52 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
Therefore, as a matter of fact, the order of the Court
recording the memo which reads that the allotment would
be made in terms of certain terms and conditions that
would be drawn for such allotment and includes
development charges payable by the appellant. Thus,
recording the said memo, the learned Single Judge had
disposed of the writ petition. Therefore, if the appellant
wanted allotment or lease-cum-sale agreement to be
executed, it ought to have complied with communication
for payment of development charges. In fact, it was
directed to be paid within thirty days from the
communication dated 31.12.2013. Now, almost thirteen
years is elapsed. Even today, the appellant has not paid
development charges, as was demanded.
58. Under Article 300A of the Constitution of India,
no doubt, the land owner has a right over the property
and that cannot be taken away, is unacceptable
submission. The land was always available to the
appellant, subject to certain conditions of KIADB.
– 53 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
59. Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Board, vehemently contended that the appellant has
defaulted in payment of development charges and
therefore, the allotment of plot cannot be made in favour
of the appellant and it is always open to the appellant to
claim compensation in accordance with law for acquisition
of its property. Therefore, the submission of learned
counsel for respondent No.2-Board merits consideration in
the peculiar facts of the case as the appellant for nearly
ten years did not come forward to pay development
charges of Rs.15,75,75,000/- that was demanded.
Therefore, there is no merit consideration to set aside the
communication dated 31.12.2013 after thirteen years of
its issuance.
60. As the Board allotted 10 acres land each in
favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they paid entire
consideration amount as ordered by the KIADB and
allotment letter, lease-cum-sale agreement, khata also
stands in the name of respondent Nos.3 and 4,
respectively in respect of their extent of land and the fact
– 54 –
WA No. 273 of 2023
that the appellant failed to deposit development charges
since thirteen years, the learned Single Judge has rightly
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and we
find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in declining to interfere with the impugned
communication dated 31.12.2013.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The writ appeal is dismissed.
2. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
shall stand dismissed.
3. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN/-
