MYSORE I.T. SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 619/4 36TH CROSS, IIND BLOCK NEAR ESI HOSPITAL RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR G. DAYANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -company is assailing the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the first respondent -State Government which is impugned at Annexure -A to the petition. By the said order, the first respondent has ordered that the second respondent Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short) shall cancel the allotment of land measuring 3 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No. 24 of Kadubeesanaballi village made in favour of the petitioner -company and to allot an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas out of the said land in favour of the third respondent -company. The facts in brief are that the petitioner -company which is engaged in the business of Software Solutions required lands for setting up Software Technology Park. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the application to the KIADB. The said application of the petitioner was considered by the Single Window Clearance Committee ('SWC Committee' for short) on 20.03.2006. The same was communicated to the petitioner by the communication dated 01.04.2006 addressed by the Karnataka Udyogamitra. The petitioner had sought for grant of 9 acres 09 guntas of land for the said purpose which was to be located in Sy.No.23/4 and 24 of Kadubeesanaballi. The said lands had been acquired by the Government under the KIADB Act. Insofar as the land situate in Sy.No.23/4, the landowners had questioned the acquisition in W.P.No.5081/2006 which was pending consideration. In that view, an extent of 3 acres 05 guntas which was available in Sy.No.24 was allotted in favour of the petitioner by indicating that the remaining extent of 1 acre 20 guntas would be allotted. The KIADB accordingly issued the allotment letter dated 18.01.2007 as per which the balance amount was required to be paid by the petitioner which was also complied and accordingly, the petitioner -company was put in possession on 28.05.2007. The lease -cum -sale agreement was thereafter executed on 04.07.2007. In the meanwhile, the petition filed by the land owners in respect of Sy.No.23/4 in W.P.No.5081/2006 was allowed. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, they have questioned the order in W.A.No. 1495/2008 which is stated to be pending.

(2.) IN this background, the third respondent -company on the other hand claim that they had purchased different extents of the land in certain survey numbers including an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.24 which was acquired by KIADB and the extent of 3 acres 05 guntas which was allotted in favour of the petitioner consists of that extent of 2 acres 20 guntas. The third respondent therefore questioned the acquisition and allotment in favour of the petitioner -company by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.4149/2007. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the third respondent was a subsequent purchaser after the acquisition. The third respondent therefore filed an appeal in WA No. 1556/2008 which also came to be dismissed. Hence, a special leave petition in SLP No.20055/2009 was filed. In the meanwhile, the third respondent approached the Government seeking that the property purchased by the third respondent be allotted to them. The request made by the third respondent is stated to have been considered subject to the condition that the third respondent would withdraw the Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that view, the impugned order dated 26.03.2010 was passed whereby the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled and an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas of the land out of the same be allotted in favour of the third respondent. It was also proposed that the petitioner be allotted land in any other place since their proposal has already been cleared by the SWC Committee. It is in that view the petitioner has questioned the said order in this writ petition.

(3.) IN the light of the same, I have heard Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the third respondent and Sri Basavaraj Sabarad, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the writ papers.