PALREACHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS Vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice of cancellation dated 13.06.2013 at Annexure -X to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents/KIADB to clarify the position regarding the possession of the lands and thereafter take further steps towards conveying the property to the petitioner. The brief facts are that the petitioner with the intention of setting up a Logistics park had applied for allotment of 25 acres of land at Iggalur village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District through the Karnataka Udyog Mitra. Pursuant to the application filed on 26.08.2011, the Karnataka State Level Single Window Clearance Committee had informed the petitioner about the availability of the land. The further details in that regard need not be adverted to, inasmuch as, the land measuring 15 acres has been allotted to the petitioner at Iggalur Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. In the instant petition, the question that would arise for consideration is only with regard to the action that has been taken by the respondents through the impugned communication dated 13.06.2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner for time to pay the amount and also with regard to whether the land is available for granting possession in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) IN that regard, at the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents. The manner of allotment made to the petitioner and the terms to be complied therein has been referred to in the objection statement. With regard to the apprehension that has been put forth by the petitioner that they would not be entitled to possession of the property due to certain developments and therefore they had not paid the amount earlier as their bankers had not processed the papers in view of the aspect relating to possession, but it has now been clarified by the respondents, that the claim, which was earlier made by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike does not subsist, inasmuch as, the respondents herein have already indicated the right of the BBMP. Hence the respondents herein have clarified that to the extent of 15 acres which has been allotted in favour of the petitioner, there is absolutely no impediment at this juncture to hand over possession to the petitioner and the only concern of the respondents is that the petitioner did not show seriousness in pursuing the project by paying the amount and taking possession of the land.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, in that regard has also referred to the communication dated 28.05.2013 which had been addressed by the BBMP to the petitioner indicating their claim. Since the said communication was at an earlier point of time and the respondents have now clarified the said position, the land would be available for giving possession at present. However, the petitioner would have to show their bonafides and seriousness in proceeding with the project by taking possession of the land. To the said extent, the learned counsel for the petitioner would clarify that if the possession is assured to the petitioner, their bankers are ready to finance the project and the amount would be deposited. The objection statement filed herein and the same being taken note by the Court shall now be considered as a clarification relating to the possession to be handed over to the petitioner and the bankers of the petitioner would be entitled to act upon the same.