IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA, BAPi':(3'rAII\:C):I§ E'~«
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY 01%.'. Magéfi "29¥;I:)é"' k
BEFORE'; I L 2
THE HON'BLE MR. JIISTICE "A BQIII'Il§':D§'A»»
1
wan' PETITION ;1\iO,21'Z99:}1Ii_;I'3OO5.fG}*.d;I;{I__AfE1)B)
IvI,m T "Rear PA£'..I={P'v"P,l{{--'fl -
NO.62--B, I3oMwI--.¢,sANI)23A I,NIj;IIIsTRI§A.L PIRIIIA
AIIEKALTALIIK = I '
BANLIALOIIE " .
BY i'vE}JRi_':LiDH}%RA"'A.'jv'I.
DIREC.'I.'0.R_ ' I " PETITICJNER
(BY SMT ADV FOR PRANHLA ASSOCIATES)
AND :
II?§II*3ufT_I_'§II'xI. AREAS 'DE'v'E" OPIviE'€T BGARB
A «1»'+----,I3, :?."Ii>ID'"E'LOOR, R.P. BUILDING
. VI4.Ru?ATHuII€3,A ROAD
A "a._aI'I~aI\.GVI'=-.v«I4:>:--*IIs:.¢ I3;
._B'E_}?I'S'CI%I_EE?:;EXECUTIVE OFFICER REsI><::fiI::E'T
(BY sI?_I'I':s -RFSIIINIVASA GOWDA, ADV)
* _ T " IVTLHIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLLES 226 AND
~.. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TI-IE
'ORDER DT. 25.3.05 BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-J AND
ETC.
” THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
41..
f
The pctitioncl’ is before thisizflpuft
writ of c:ert1’orari to quash ,§3It1¥=;r’v.t.;iiatcd. ‘ ”
No.0ADB/1351/7468/Q5-05 at 1LI111€_}£l,11'E_3 'J' to they said oxder, the
133’1~’-fllrclent 21-J-=.»_ “””‘*_’:-2′-1:1. ha 159% I
mtrs. cf 1$u;d’::. plfit of;’§Eirmmasand1’a indtlstliai
A1133, T8111}: which was allotted in
favour A(:)f__tht; \ ,.,_ ” ‘”
Q; I”V’1&1ave Ms.Gectha Manon, learned coulmel
~ “idle lnetitioner and Sri B.R.Sn’31ivasa Gowda,
lL2,1’1-I:€}_. .r:.r’_1-L’r_I_.1r1._t:1 agypcaflng for the Iespolldellt. Having heard
” .1’§:§{j;g:::’s.
1
‘-a.
3. The facts Whicli are not in dispute V
bearing No.62–B of Bommasandzra “I’11dusttfial iAtij}Je1§; V
Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measiuillg
L. _£J.fDLl..’ _f K.T.J.T11omag, w]:_:o*~.was H19 P1ii;_3iiip!ror” of’Joey”
Riibbor ‘flozks 3.11.. ‘gossessio-12! Cfii*§ifi%$E 0′ was HI”.§S’.l€d on
27.07.1″79. A iease otiiiisaifj éagf.1″oij:i”::fit’»eTi’f’d 2′}’.08.19′}’9
was also eiggmlffiq _ said allottee.
Subaequeotlgi, ‘.:v_gaiol.: 0 was converted
into s.E11ergy Pack (Private)
Liinitégii’ -of –the rcspolidcnt and as such, a
fieali » Cl’.li1’J.’V iii”:-3..§i’tV.=.Jc1nent dated 19.01.1985 was
cxogstitacl in’ t;11¢:_V of the finn. However, the disputt-, at
is that the vespoiident contclids that the
aiioftefi’ in iris favour alld a ]_JC)i”l o 1 rue so”-“”1g ~ru-4
xn1t;rs. ‘wins not used for any of the activities of the petitioner,
‘*;.11er.~o1tle:1* dated 25.08.2005 has been passed oazioellilig the
Héleasc agiocment to the said extent indioatilig that possession
of that portion would be taken on 19.09.2005. Thfl
1
13.
Iespondcnt oontt:11ds that such action has beoif
issue ofnotioo to the petitioner. ._
4. On this aspect of tl1e, 1_i1aj:te1′, ii: no t”éoii!.f_ti:<–!.111é thatw L'
the mspolldent has isstlcd _;'-_1__ "allow oai1se_ _ notiiot: dated
":3A1ow¥3aL:_$o :1: éwao issued by the
agrccmelzt pofi*'on«j= »~'cm:u. d
ce1'tai11"t§:I:1I1sf therefore they had
propoocd_ ti1jo '"o%cmo'nt made in favour of the
pctitio1A16:Ir_." _ the sahow cause nofioe, the
pet:it:io11_e1' V1'1xr«,1Vsf.'~i1:13.Iét:dv by its oomlnunioafioll dated
– 1§2005a In Iepiy, the pet.itio11e1* has indicated
which only a portion of the plot had hex-11
my s’La_m-g that E116: <.:o.n.rstn1ot1'o11
vf=§.ll';f}.1ET the petifionel' has a Pmjcot to expand the busiitlcss in
K big Way by oelltcriug into oollabomtiolx with foreign
.1" %—.-r
Compallies. Despite the said reply being ieeued *
petitiollel', the order dated 25.08.2005 has he.-.%i1' 'p}(s§éca,'_'
5. A pcl’l.1SHl of the ‘CT-_1jc’ie;’ weulel i1_1di§:§ete’v«–vt11at3 t1ie–.
1espo11c1e11t. has nefe1Te__d to th_e : of the
‘ease agreemexzt. and in’:-‘_’:rj::,’:.a.’r issued by the
pe’ti’ri”1″1′ the re”*'”I1:den§:s:=}1a?ee._ ” ….e.t _he
reasons a.’95e,ig§7;:;1et:~:§:Ee’eé%*;!1_fe ‘ti1e:r’fCni”” 4?: p”*r.i*i1
of the after cmlceiiing the
lease ex;ent.. In this backgmund,
What Ieqglires ‘is that the very lease agreement
e11tereri_ illfe ,1§Ae’twee1.i- die parties would indicate that the
‘ «£i1’IC:\«lV:.teE-t’:”L ‘is VVVe>I,1&tit1ec«1VV”1’:’6 «put up collstructiorl only to the extent
size 0f the plot and that too after leaving
euificient 1232.. 9.1.4:. as i11d.i..J.=;t_.c1 i_- he agleement. The
fact. ‘iIt1″‘i. the pei”1’i”i”i1ei’ h'”e ‘put up same eG11s..’uc!;5e11 in .he
.p1di_« is not in dispute, but what is (tent
‘fixespondent is that the entim plot. has not been utiiiseci. This
aspect of the matter also requires to be looked into fmna the
I
5
angle ofthe Jlature of the business czanied on ‘
since the Iesponclent would have to »a1’1’ij(e
to what is the lnattlre of b11s1;i3.cs9Q
petitioner, whethel’ the is 1 ‘L
by buildings to be CD11Bfl’l1CtB(1___B§’,’flifiv pcfi’tie-1’1t_:r whether
portioll ifiié -‘mtflding. “w’i’ri1out
COI1:’iiC1l§1éI2l:g*v..g?.i.1:.}–.’V’i’§!}§3:Ei€t tv1’f§eV mattcr, the: rcsponclcllt
ca11.11cét c:)1 1ié:’v te _tli¥1t the allottcc /pct1’t1’oncr in
this c2:1AS1:’1ias :_4f’i:% ‘i’;.5i.’1}1s of the ag1’ee1nent, since the
entire. plot iiafi A110t”be.é11 fifilised by put.ti11g up collstructioll.
illtllidilfficd to ‘the xi}’sDB Act
for 311011) viclc Section 34(3), wlxewill the provisiml
fountains that the 11:spo11c1e11t should provide an opport.unity
to the allottee to reuledy the breaches if any, even if the
1
E
reependent 11ot:ic:es such blea-ell. Though it is”p1eLF1et1i1’eete.’T V’
I
new at dais sage as .9 whe-h.e: tjjere is’ ‘a ebi7ea¢,::h. fir. _no’f;,V ‘the:
object of “ie p'””‘i'”‘”i”i itself weu1d’,_im’3ica.e fly:-.’t1 –_3.e ‘sage ~_
has been illtrodueecl so fi1af.’«.fl ‘1’e, IEBPC-“‘1ii?.i”1_”i._: urn”;-Vtilwfi’ “3’i3ig
about a situation w11e1’e~t11e afidttee’ve6:11fi lltiiise fiie pint for
the vely same purpose :V.:fai;11L($’t.$ed. T ]16lB.fOI’€, if
such a 11ot1’c_:.e ise1f;ecl, 1ie”;if1cL1mbent 011 the
allottee to;’ieii;et§l’y’ ‘jevep if such ‘meaehea we
there mxdv fimetixeti, waullci be eusuled that the plot
is uiilieeci for which it was allotted.
-1
5!-
E
(1
III
:1
==r~
:;
£1:
,:
I
F?’
:5
H
E:
21
“a
E:
”+
:3
E3
5%
E
5
hi
I
4
8
g..
Q
1’5
Id
1″?
:Qi’.i:1 1v()__1t:iJ1g Ciiause-4 of the lease agieemefit ecvht ta
leave Vveilch a notice, more particularly when the
the plesent case had indicated specific reaeolls
feeald to the no11~11ti1isatio11 of a partial) till such time
the method in whicth it would be ufilised in futtue.
8. T11t’31’Cf(}1’f3, collsidcriug all these as-;_];):c’act.’e3A? ”
matter, I am of the View that the i31
its ])l’CS€I1f. form is not s11staji:abfl_iT”éx11c?i’~. fhfi safiic: iié.
accordingly quashed. ifs 11di&’:v£r_ thc’~ . L’
1,.:31__11d_t::11t to issue a poficc as §S:m11ta=:1np1ated. _1_111c1ér Section
34(3) *1″ the Act. #113″ 9.135111 it
In tctmus offlxc al}ov?e-_Va11(.l with tviié above oi)se1vafio11s,
this ]_)|53t”l.tEi01′}’~,§}’:t’c’3.fil,_!:.:’l’S c}”.tb.s.'[3c’1:-A-.’.°’.’VvL:A-.ci N urder as to costs.
Sd!-
Judge