High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K B Balaraju S/O K Bhadrappa vs Director Of Industries & Commerce on 7 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri K B Balaraju S/O K Bhadrappa vs Director Of Industries & Commerce on 7 March, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT or-' KARNATAKA AT BANQ;§L§.§REvvI,

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH;',,'/¢:\')C7§:'/L "   *

BEFORE 

CI'.

Between:

SR1 K B BALARAJU s/0 K-I3H.ADIeAPI?Av  I 
AGED ABOUT' 52  A  "  1 ., " 
PRoPRIET0R.IvH._s1' CHANDRA WEAVENQTFACTORY
KUDUR, MAG-AD{i'TALlJ'IR INDUS'T'RiAL
DE1?E'LQPMENT,'KHANIJA BHAVAN,

RACE QUIIRCE "Ro.A._.r)

 " I3AfI~IGAI;0RE_-- 550 001

0 .
H

'V ' 'I'hI'I"\I"IC|f'l'\'DI'lll r\n\1n:\I i'\l')l.l
ll'llJUs'.31I\ll'\Lr L'l:I'VEJI.J\.Ir'I.Vl

 I\.4_n.I\I'II.rirmr; 1*.;I:>}i1.'n'rnD
L'IiI"l"l'1'H.U JV.' .lV".I.J\./I \-J1'

'IIAHNATA:§.A STATE SMALL
IN'DUS_T'K'IA.L DE'v'ELOPIviEN'1' CORP
INI'.)U.S'i'ARIAL ESTATE

 AARAJAJINAGAR
I. B'AN_GALORE - 560 044

AA""'-HAEF  {IE}

'VL/L1].

KARNATAKA STATE SMALL

NT CORPORATEC-N
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

RAJAJINAGAR

BANGALORE - 560 044

ONBLE MR.-JUSIICE L HAH;AYAHA   



4 DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER (IE) B'LORE RURAL D[VISl0N--V 
KARNATAKA STATE sMALL  .  _ S  
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION  "  
I1\!DUSTRl.A.L EETATE I    "
RAJAJINAGAR   

BANGALORE ~ 560 044

5 KURU GRAM PANCHAYATH  

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND? ..EsIDEN'1'g> '."~w

MAGAEI TALUK _      _

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT '  I I  RE P "NDENTS
{BY SRLD ASHWATHAPPA FOR R5, SRLPU'l'TjE'€3~E.-R.R. .M...-SH FOR R2

To R4. AND sRI.R.I<uMAR, HCGP FORR1) '- I  
THIS WP FILED    To REGISTER THE
EAL-E DEED IN HIS -:FA'v'OU':%4"v¥5ITH" To TI-IE INI'.}UfiRIAL
SHED IN  '*K';'3\I(J-,8o1;"""KiJDUR VILLAGE, MAGADI
TALUK, BAlN'.GA--LCRvE§V'VRFQJRAL-L.:_'D--Ib"fRlCT, AND GRANT INTERIM
ORDER To REEtr'RAINvvTIIEeREERONDENTS FROM DISPOSSESSING
HIM FROM_TIIE"'INIJLISTRIVAMSHED SITUATED IN SY.NO.376/1,
I{;...No.36I;iKIJ_IIIIVR vI?LLAI3E, MAGADI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL

r°1rr\

'L'iiS'i"Ri'L.:I .

'l'h.i's'WIIit coming on for hearing in 'B' group before

  today'; 'Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner is an allottee of Industrial Shed in Kudur

“Tillage by the first respondent —– Director of Industries and

°\
\

Commerce and Commissioner for Industrial Development,

Bangalore under the Vishwa Programme vide letter of

dated 31 /5] 1997 . Pursuant to allottnent pas-pp j x

the petitioner was communicated: by
and it -“ppe””s tu t the isst. _’u.A;:u1′;.’ Lire’-C Lu
demand notice on 16/2/205136erentaidue”aski11g him
to pay Rs.Q,75,025.00. The said amount
vide Annex11re–D. he received caveat

peti-.on as per ‘Jed by the Kudi r v a.

Fanchayathviittiianeiher the anticipated suit that may be
filed by the ipetitiorier’ It is stated in the caveat
petition that Siu’S D ‘C hasvoifered to the Grama Panchayat to

oxiera the on payment of Rs.2,25_,000_/–

1’1’FIL? {Maurie}-nrntrnf has pair’

or-1:1 ‘angannfliqfiltr
C-|.ll.\.«l Jr

T’ jr’T’iierefore, the ‘petitioner has approached this Court to direct the

i respondent to register the sale deed in his favour in respect

shed in Sy.No. 367/ 1, K No.861, Kudur village.

2. The respondents 2 to 4 filed statement of objections.

vi:-They have submitted that the petitioner has not complied the

_..—J:

4

terms and conditions of Annexure–A, he was due some “a”1;n.ount

and Grama Panchayat being the owner of the pmperty.

possession of the property. In para;3″(d)~oi’ ‘itheei b T ‘

objections it is stated Lha- t..e a_..oLnt :;ecei.e.dv_.’ to

An’1″:~iur”–C is oil” “Warns = shed
value, the petitioner has to pay .sepa:~at¢i3zp which he has not

complied. Hence the respondents their action.

3. The learned__ the respondent No.5 Kudur
Gram Panchayat is of its ownership,
petitioner has no’1’ip.ht and therefore no relief can

on’

be granted to the..pet…1cne’;i as._p-rayed for.

It isifseen thatwas per the den1_._nd zname _y t.-…

respondents -Séirie if-innexure-C, me mi ner 11 s ruaue the

T o;rpayinent.”-«.._ meme. no additional demand is issued to the

“44’1_Zie714;itiVc’311er.__ in the circumstances, the petitioner who is in

the industrial shed as per Annexure-A cannot be

.i _ tenninated adverse to his interest n__1ess th..re is e..rnp1ianc.. of

“‘~.py_4″‘r-ri.i1″”-ipi*s of r Lur” justice and provisions of allotment rules by

the first respondent. If any amount is due the first respondent

5

is at liberty to issue demand calling upon the pay,

which the petitioner shall comply and thereafterfitlleir

shed shall be registered in favour oi,’-‘the ii

Annexu- ..-A.

With this observation, this petition is ciispoised of.

‘ 1-‘xi-‘