Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sunita W/O Prashanth And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 October, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION NOS.103213-103226/2013
(GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. Sunita
W/o Prashanth
Aged about 33 years,
R/o Naubad,
Tq. & Dist. Bidar-585401.
2. Mohamed Zubar Ahmed
S/o Mohamed Laiq Ahamed,
Aged about 40 years,
H.No.4-2-44 (New)
Noorkhan Talam,
Bidar-585401.
3. Surekha
W/o N. Gouda,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o Naubad,
Bidar-585401.
4. Tanuja W/o Ravi,
Aged about 40 years,
2
R/o Islampur village,
Tq. & Dist. Bidar.
5. Kamalabai
W/o S.G.Kashinath
Aged about 42 years,
R/o Gurusiddha Krupa,
Opp: W.T.House,
Air Force Road,
Shiva Nagar South,
Bidar-585401.
6. Raghunath
S/o Shatteppa Gaikwad,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o Naubad,,
Bidar-585401.
7. Vimlavathi
W/o Antappa Gubhe
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Naubad,
Bidar-585401.
8. Ganapathi
S/o Shivraj Singepalli,
Aged about 50 years
R/o Allapur,
Tq. & Dist. Bidar-585403.
9. Baburao
S/o Veerashetty
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Naubad
R/o Bidar-585401.
3
10. Shivaraj Halshetty
W/o Baswanappa Halshetty
Aged about 56 years,
R/o H.No.19-1-116,
Banker's Colony,
Shivanagar (South),
Bidar-585401.
11. Ashok
S/o Sharanappa Bamandi
R/o Hugeri,
Tq. & Dist. Bidar-585403.
12. Masiuzzama
S/o Md. Ilyasuzzama
Aged about 53 years,
H.No.2-1-111, Siddhi Talim,
Naya Kaman Road,
Bidar-585402.
13. Chandra Shekar
S/o Mudarageri,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o Mejestic Cons. No.19-2-75,
Behind MES quarters,
Anand Nagar,
Bidar-585403.
14. Shilaja W/o Ashok Wadde,
Aged about 51 years,
R/o Shashikala Nivas,
Behind Shivanagar Petrol Pump,
Bidar-585401.
... Petitioners
(By Sri.Ravi B.Patil, Advocate)
4
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through the Directorate of
Industries and Commerce,
Vidhan Soudha,
Bangalore-01.
2. The Chief Development Officer
& Chief Engineer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
14/3, 2nd Floor, R.P. Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore-01.
3. The Deputy Development Officer
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
K.I.A.D.B. Office,
Plot No.16-A,
Kolhar Industrial Area,
Bidar-585403.
... Respondents
(Sri.Manvendra Reddy, Govt. Advocate for R1)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a
writ of certiorari, any other writ or direction to quash
the impugned notice bearing No.KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/
543/2013-14, dated 28.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/
DDO/472/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/
BDR/DDO/532/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/
13/BDR/DDO/537/2013-14, dated 16/27.09.2013
KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/479/2013-14, dated 08-
5
07/16.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/534/2013-14,
dated 16/27.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/533/
2013-14, dated 16/27.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/
DDO/478/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/
BDR/DDO/480/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/
13/BDR/DDO/488/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013,
KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/474/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013,
KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/481/2013-14, dated 08-07/
27.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/471/2013-14,
dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/482/2013-
14, dated 08-07/27.09.2013, along with the copy of the
decision taken by the Board in the alleged 322nd
meeting held on 11.03.2013 as at Annexures-D to D13
respectively, issued by 3rd respondent authority and etc.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court praying for the following reliefs:
a) issue a writ of certiorari, any other writ or direction to quash the impugned notice bearing No.KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/543/ 2013-14, dated 28.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR /DDO/472/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/ BDR/DDO/532/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/ 13/BDR/DDO/537/ 2013-14, dated 16/27.09.2013 KIADB/13/ 6 BDR/DDO/479/2013-14, dated 08-07/ 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/534/ 2013-14, dated 16/27.09.2013, KIADB/13/ BDR/DDO/533/ 2013-14, dated 16/ 27.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/ DDO/478/ 2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/ BDR/DDO/480/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/488/2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/474/2013-
14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/ DDO/481/2013-14, dated 08-07/ 27.09.2013, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/471/ 2013-14, dated 16.09.2013, KIADB/13/ BDR/DDO/482/2013-14, dated 08-07/ 27.09.2013, along with the copy of the decision taken by the Board in the alleged 322nd meeting held on 11.03.2013 as at Annexures-D to D13 respectively, issued by 3rd respondent authority.
b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the
petitioners to put up construction over the plots sold in their favour by issuing 7 necessary construction permission within such prescribed period fixed by this Court.
c) Pass such other/s, directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including an order as to the costs of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on payment of entire consideration, absolute sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the plots mentioned in the writ petitions, but the petitioners shocked to receive notices from respondent No.3 as per Annexures-'D' to 'D13'. He submits that as per the impugned Annexures-'D' to 'D13' the petitioners have been intimated that the allotment of sites in favour of the petitioners was cancelled and execution of sale deed was rejected in the 322nd Board meeting held on 11.03.2013 and the amount paid by the petitioners was also forfeited and 8 directed the petitioners to return the documents issued by the Board.
3. There is no material placed on record to show that the petitioners have given any representation to the respondent No.2 - Authority. Under such circumstances, there is no good ground to entertain the writ petitions. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent No.2 and seek appropriate relief. Liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court if necessary after exhausting remedy available before respondent No.2.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk