wn-_«-.e:zr--~L«~.r--'»>v~<--W-'**" '7'." ' " " '
IN TI'-IE- HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
cnzcurr BENCH AT GULBARGA "
DATED THIS THE um DAY OF' FEBRUE;§.£Y ~
BEFORE;
HONBLE MR.JUs:r1cE MOHAN
w.P.Nos.80562 & 805 83../20"1'O
BETWEEN: ' '
RAGHUNATH GAIKWAD
S/O SHETEPPA __ ._
AOED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: WATER sERv1c£NOw& ' _ v_ «V *
PROP. M /S RA_J._AA W.ATI:i:R sERv1.CE.s_'~. ._
UNIT AUTO NAGAR CQl\Ji.PLEX
NAUBAD BIIJAR, "
_ .. PETITIONER
(SR1 _'
AND: 'L
1. THE cii:E'E'E§{Et:m*m: OFFICER AND
. . §,:EXEOUT1vE~ MEMJBER. KARNATAKA
- 1'NO.r_.JsTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
'A F,-OA,RDf'?JO. 14/3 2ND FLOOR,
:_ " EA:sjrRO=z:}iAN PARISHAD BUILDiNG
._"NRUF¢;Afru';NOA ROAD. BANGALORE-01.
_ 2,. "'=THE"OE'Pu'rY1)§«:vE1,OpMEN'I'O;«*EIc£«:R,
K~.I.A;.I).l3.
PLOT NO. 'I 6A, HUMNABAD,
A' ' ~L)1sT.BiOAR
I-J
2. TIr*lE JUNIOR IEINGINEIER KARNATAKA
INDUSTRIAL AREA I)l€V£§LOP.t\rlEl\}"l'
BOARD KOLHAR LWDUSTRIAL AREA
BIDAR. .. _
[SR1 K.A.KALBURGl. A.DVOCA'I'E)
»z< amt:
This Writ. Petition is filed
of the Constitut':ior1 of Inc1i:e§,_ _v'pr.§1yi1ig to vqtiVa,eh:._;fh'e' orderl" V
dated 27.1.2010 passed lhrespvontlelits in
No.KIADB/ 13/NAG/0500/:;£7Q/2oo9'+~1,o/1705
(Annexure-J). H I
This o1_1i"xfo.:_r" gjjfelinleilrlary hearing this
day, the lfiiet
'''' " A
notice on behalf of the
respon_denté: u
the Ielavffied counsel for the parties.
petitioner applied for allotment of plots
from.4__Ka_r11atfe1l{a lndust1'ia.l Areas Development Board 1'.e.
fir:st._.:resp(311de11t h€l'€iI1. He was allotted plots
VA and 270 on 5/6-l.~2007. The copy of the
vwam»-mM~."' W"
M...
"K
"xx.
allotment letier pr0d'L1eed at Arr1nexure~I:3 to the writ.
petition. Cerieiin e011dit.ior3s are attached.'"t§j'<«..f,he
allotment order. P't.11'SL1::"~11"l1. to the a110m1ent,*posSe§sic§ir;.e *
certificate was issued to the peti_tien_er oh OV'5L":~)fi{.'2O3?',aS'V 0
per Annexu1'e»mD. The petitioner St:Aai'ed00t0_v"hav'e
payments in instalimeiits c3i"i.}féuji0us0'd.ates.V ~.Le:»;iSe=ei1mw 0'
saie agreement was execut.ed.--~ih: 5? the petitioner
on 19.2.2007. Since 'vioiated certain
Conditions impoieed letter, i.e.,
n0n'i3aYmeh_t of the
neihgeubmission of building
plan/aehdieiiehal v.1_0ei1Aii:Ai--,":_fxeii:-ihiplemexltation of the plots
ailotied e-t
for resumpticm plots No.269 82 270 of Naubad Atrfcs-.Area
measuring 223 sq. mtrs.
3. The learned Counsel fQ_r...I,h_e pei.it'iO"1'1e;1' sVu.br_11i'ts V
that since the plots in
basic infrastructural fac:i1i€ies",'r.iVt was not the"
i3et1'ti0ner to comply with a.i1...iviVifé;~1.con;iit.idn*sv--.ati;1ched to
the allotment order. V that if certain
time is accorcieqito' construction
permission. for by the pei.iti0neI',
he the plots and start
produetiori in the :Lini*tv;ite..;;1'ri.__ea1"1y date.
;'?he wri'i'-petiitioh is capposefi by Sri.K.A.Kalburgi,
iflvthev'Ies.rheci"c:o;i11se1 for the respondents contending that
Athe-i’13eiti’i.vib:1e15.i’c:iz1n110t: be shown an ienience inasmuch
_ as she has -net complied with the major conditions such
s:ibrn’i’ssi0n of blue prints for approva} of plan for civil
_’ r~’cC.nstr’uCti0I1 and Consequeritly, has failed to commence
U’:
the eivil eonst:1″‘ueti()1’1 works. Aecordirig ti), the
responde11ts._ t’:]1ot1g11 already about two ycre-rs”~4e}1eav.e
elapsed from the date of lease agreemeiat, the petftierlef
has not even i:}’10ug}’1t ()f’g<%t:t,i1'1g §i'1'ep'1«;an 'ap 3:"_oVi'rec_'i,
4. The records re\ze2I1.._that’~..the leE§1sef’e–11n1–Visaie’.i’
agreement was executed in _1’3._et;it;§0ner on
19.02.2007 and the approved on
22.09.2007. pfef permission
{Amnexure f:.P”) ” it t have complied
with the- therein and start
pr0du(;;€iO1;1 the civil construction.
Since failed to comply with the
e0n,_C1itiQn’s uof thVe*vl«e..ss’e–eum–sa1e agreement as well as
th.e”c:Qr1stI€1etVi0’n permission, this Court does not find
aniy fa«ult_Athe notice issued by the respondents for
‘xe1eterm~_ining the lease and Iesumption of the plot.
‘*.Henee_« the same c:ann()t be interfered with.
.m,:.,.i.W_
\
\,\1
(3
What. is (.’.1’1.E’:¥..11€I1gL*’d the iiotiee A.nnexure-L “dated
27.01.2010. requi1’ing; the petitioner to 21ppeg{1*.d:’fo:r’–_’a
personal discussion on 3.2.2010. No i’ir§i’éi] order ‘
passed. ‘i’heref01″ei it open forthse..pei:i.iioii4er-Vie Veipipeeir
before the respo1″1deni,S/ Board.
discussion is already o\re1#.,Vs””‘~~*;_l1e pe__titi–o_ri’erxfisvhaii be’
directed to appear me within
three weeks from tliisiiédeiyg T open for the
respondents do ieke ‘.fa.r;eoij’dFance. Ordered
aecordingljki i i
direction
will order is not Ye; passed. If
fir1a1AV.Qrder””relatir’1g°toA”‘resumpti0n is already passed,
V’ ‘wheridiit open i’oi’i7he petitioner to challenge such order.
n Wi9i’£.petit,ic>n is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/=5
JUDGE
¥[“i\1_ A