(Prayer: 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.)

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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

                  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 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 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 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 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 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, learned counsel appearing for RespondentNo.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.

                  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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 free to deal with plot No.2/66 in accordance with law.