IN 'THE HIGH comm' OF KARHATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED mxs THE am my 0? 9EcEMBEE,_Qé§oE. : '
BEFORE "
THE HONBLE MR JUSTIEE N_;i{£iMPsR_1 '
WRIT PETITION No.30935]20OS.{§3'M-KIAEDISEA .
BETWEEN:
BAHUBAIJ PAYAPPANAVAR-,_ _ j 1 AA ~
s/0 SR1 BHIMARAYAPPA ?AYI;PPAi'¥i§'€1°LF3e. . j
AGED ABOUT 42YEARs, . '
occ: SUBINESSMfiN,v.. ;' '~
R/O # 20/65 LIMA E;1:1LD1I~:.G,% } "'
RANADE ROAD. £~§;NDV'_1k{J:._' "
BELGAUMII? '
.. PE'!'I'i'§0NER
(BY SR1VEERESfR.I§ii?§JIHAL,V'ADV;)_"V""
AND: M _ A S _b
THE.ExECiJ'E'I_VE MEM's3E1'é,
KARNATAKA INi}_i)S'I'RIAL AREA
DVEVELQPMENT EOE-ED(K1AnB),
1.
" N'RUPA'mI;2'E:3.A ROAD,
E ,EAzv¢.s«.E;,ogE.AV E
'TH§?3'DEPLITYA'§DEVELOPMENI' OFFICER,
zUs1*R1ALAREA, PB. ROAD,
BELQAUM 1o.
.. RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PE’I’I’I’ION IS FiLED UNDER AR’I’§CLES 226 AND
_ ‘ ‘2Q7T OF THE CONS’!’I’I’U’I’ION or» mom PRAYHVIG TO DIRECT THE
_ ,RESPONI)EN’I’S TO HAND OVER THE POSSESSKDN OF’ THE
PLOT No.99/A, KIADB INDUETIEAL AREA, HONAGA, BELGAUM
IN FAVOUR OF’ THE P’E’I’f’I’IONER AS PER’ THE ORIJER OF
ALLCYPMENT VIDE ANNEXURE –B AND ETC.
iv
THIS WRIT PETYTION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS BAY;
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
$3
The petitioner has sougxt for ‘m .. .
writ of mandamus directing ‘V
over the possession of t.i:s145:__ pidt.v.”‘2*Io.9¥}] .§,.
Industrial Area, Honaga, ‘ of the
petitioner as per ‘t11(=,-‘x;.f_;'(:?.’ ” ”
pet:itioner’s case to the Joint of
per Annexure ‘A’ and ”
be passed allotting the He
has paid in a sum of the cost of
the said plot. But requests and
reminders,_ not executed,
plot There was
also the land to the original
allottee this Writ petition.
the pei1dej:1eo}fé:of the writ petition, the said plot
the petitioner has preferred
‘ V –V for quashing of the same also.
The allotment of said plot in favour of Sri
” M/s. A.R.Ir1dustries is not in dispute.
However in nomcompliance of the terms of the
alloment, it was resumed by the KIADB. It is thereafter
la/’
on a request made by the petitioner as per Axlnet-:n_1″*e.V”B”
allotment of the said site was made in _
petitioner. In the meanwhiie, the .. i
has been restored to the
the respondents have v
of the petitioner and demand
draft of Rs. 1,26,050,t€ft,e’ Fntther, they
have stated that “the case of the
petitoner V’ plots and he is
informed same.
A…’ In the allotment in favour of
the_;{‘3etitionei*,A- not in accordance with the Act and
‘V not make any application in pursuance of
issued calling for application for
V . site but on the contrary, after coming to
VV”‘adjo1mn’ ‘ g site has been resumed and it is
–‘ streileble for allotment, he filed an application which
T ” “nae considered by the authorities and the plot was
granted to him. I But before the cancellation letter of
allotment was issued to him, the said site has been
restored to the original allottee. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the
acquired any right for afloment of the saidyiot.’ _
Therefore by Annexure “G” no said right. ” »y
ishfimmmi nafimtumytmmaamayhmxmgfag
petitioner to give his consent_.for a:116tn;er;t’file w
plot of land.
5. Under these’ it would be
3113-PDroPI’iatt3′ this? this writ
A Bnforoeable legal right.
Hencé, . : W’ V… .
Iudge
xmv