Karnataka High Court
M/S Embee Agro Food Industries (Pvt ) Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 3764 OF 2013 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN
M/S EMBEE AGRO FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT ) LTD
NO.604/B, CHANNAGIRI ROAD, DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
M S ANIMISHA
S/O M B SOMASHEKHARA GOWDA
AGED 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.981
SHIVAKUMARA NILAYA,
TARALABALU BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE TOWN 577005
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A V GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
Digitally signed GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER,
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE 560001
KARNATAKA
2. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA
(A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ORGANISATION)
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
MEMBER SECRETARY
STATE LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE
3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER
NO.14/3, SECOND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHAT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001.
4. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HARIHARA ROAD
DAVANAGERE 577 005
5. AMIT SRI KRISHNA AGARAVAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
STAR AGRI WAREHOUSE AND
COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LTD.,
G-102, MOLSHREE, RESIDENCY PLOT NO.21,
MISSION COMPOUND,
AJMEER ROAD, JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN 3O2006
6. STAR AGRI WAREHOUSE AND COLLATERAL
MANAGEMENT LTD.
NO.609, CRYSTAL PARADISE,
VEERA DESAI ROAD, NEAR JANAKI CENTRE
ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI 400053
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1;
SMT. SUKRUTA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
SRI. S.S. HAVERI., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER DIRECTING R1 TO R4 TO ALLOT AND HAND OVER THE
REMAINING EXTENT OF FIVE ACRES OF LAND BEARING PLOT
NO.45-A AT HANAGAWADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AS PER THE REQUEST LETTER PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.03.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to
4 to allot and hand over the remaining extent of five
acres of land bearing plot No.45-A at the
Hanagawadi Industrial area, Harihara Taluk,
Davanagere district as per the request letter
produced as Annexure-H;
aa. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ or order quashing the
allotment letter bearing No.
KIADB/AS/DVG/20434/3036-2012-13 dated
22/1/2012 issued by the respondent in favour of
respondent No. 6 a true copy of which is produced as
Annexure-U;
b. A Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to
4 not to allot and hand over the possession of the
remaining extent of five acres of land bearing plot
No. 45-A at the Hanagawadi Industrial Area,
Harihara Taluk, Davanagere district to respondents 5
and 6 or any other person or concern;
c. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case
including the costs of this writ petition.
2. The Petitioner is a private limited company; the
government of Karnataka held the Global Investors
Meet in February 2010 at Bangalore, inviting
industrial entrepreneurs to participate in the said
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
meet. The Petitioner participated in the said meet
and expressed its intention to invest money for the
establishment of Agro Food Industries, namely
manufacturing of Rice from Paddy and also electric
power generated from paddy husk with the
investment of Rs.25 crores.
3. The Petitioner had requested to provide at least 10
acres of land for the establishment of the industry
and an additional 2 acres of land for the
establishment of Power Generation Utility. The report
was accepted by Respondents No.1 to 3, respondent
No.2-Karnataka Udyog Mitra (KUM) by its letter
dated 12.03.2010 informed the Petitioner of the
approval of the project and allotted 10 acres of land
at Hanagawadi Industrial Area, Harihara Taluk,
Davanagere District. In another letter dated
31.03.2010, the Petitioner was informed of the
allotment of 2 acres of land in plot No.44-A of
Hanagawadi Industrial Area to set up the power
generation unit.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
4. The Petitioner contends that Respondents No.1 to 4
had informed that at present 5 acres will be made
available along with 2 acres, remaining 5 acres would
be made available within a short period. It is
claimed that the Petitioner was asked to give a letter
to that effect and accordingly on 23.06.2010, the
Petitioner submitted a letter to respondent No.4
agreeing to take possession of 5 acres of land
requesting for allotment of the balance extent of 5
acres, as and when the industry commences
production.
5. In pursuance thereof, on 28.07.2010, the respondent
No.3-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
(KIADB) allotted 5 acres of land in plot No.45-A of
Hanagawadi Industrial Area with a tentative price of
Rs.22,75,000/- per acre. In pursuance of which, the
Petitioner deposited 5% of the initial deposit and
EMD of Rs.8,00,000/- contending that there was a
delay in handing over of the 5 acres.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
6. The Petitioner made a representation to the Principal
Secretary, Government of Karnataka on 14.01.2011
requesting a direction from the Development Officer
KIADB-respondent No.4 to take action for delivery of
plot No.45-A.
7. The Petitioner, as and when demand was made,
made payment of the balance amount of
Rs.1,13,75,000/- being the cost of 5 acres of land.
The Petitioner alleges that the said land in plot
No.45-A was uneven and the Petitioner levelled the
said land by filling up and clearing the shrubs and
wild plants and thereafter put up construction of the
industry.
8. The Petitioner alleges that the remaining 5 acres was
not allotted to the Petitioner but was allotted to
Respondents No. 6. Respondent No.5 was a director
in Respondent No.6 on 22.01.2012, and it is alleged
that the said letter is a concocted and backdated
one. The said land has been allotted to the
Petitioner, the question of allotment being made to
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
Respondent No.6 would not arise. Thus, the
Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs of quashing the allotment made to
Respondent No.6 and for a mandamus directing the
Respondents No.1 to 4 to allot and hand over the
remaining extent of 5 acres.
9. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa., learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, would submit that;
9.1. There is no dispute as regards allotment of land
made to the Petitioner on the approval of the
project. The KUM has categorically directed
KIADB to allot 10 acres, but only an allotment
of 2 acres and 5 acres has been made to the
Petitioner. For the Petitioner to establish the
project properly, 12 acres of land is required.
The KIADB has not allotted 5 acres to the
Petitioner but instead allotted it to respondent
No.6 grave loss, harm and injury is being
caused to the Petitioner.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
9.2. His submission is that, it is the respondents
who were not ready to hand over 5 acres and in
that background the letter dated 23.06.2010
was written by the Petitioner. As such, the
respondents ought to have allotted the 5 acres
of land to the Petitioner.
9.3. He submits that the so-called allotment made
to Respondent No.6 on 22.01.2012 is a
concocted document. In that regard, he
submits that the application of Respondent
No.6 was submitted on 10.10.2012 and
16.10.2012 the question of allotment being
made on 22.01.2012 is completely
misconceived. The said allotment letter is
backdated, the Petitioner had approached this
Court by filing the above petition on
21.01.2013 it is to deprive the Petitioner of the
rights vested with the Petitioner that such an
allotment letter has been backdated to a date
prior to the filing of the writ petition. Thus, he
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
submits that the Petitioner is entitled to the
entire 10 acres by grant of the reliefs as prayed
for.
10. Sri.Ashok N Nayak., learned counsel for the KIADB-
Respondents No.3 and 4 submits that;
10.1. There is no request made by the KIADB to
restrict the allotment to 5 acres, the KIADB was
in possession of the 10 acres of land to be
allotted to the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner
who requested for allotment of only 5 acres and
made payment of the said amount in the year
2010-11.
10.2. The Petitioner not having come forward to
make payment of the balance amount, and not
having sought for the allotment of the balance
land, the KIDAB has gone ahead and allotted
that 5 acres to another entrepreneur, who
satisfied the requirements. It was for the
Petitioner to have accepted the allotment of the
entire 10 acres, the Petitioner not having
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
accepted the same, but having requested vide
its letter dated 23.06.2010 that at present the
Petitioner needs only 5 acres allotment and
future 5 acres would be required for expansion.
The Petitioner chose to restrict the allotment to
5 acres with a future right of allotment of 5
acres being reserved. No such reservation
being permissible under law, the Petitioner
cannot by making payment for only 5 acres
bloch the entire 10 acres. The Petitioner cannot
now, after an allotment has been made to a
third-party bona fide entrepreneur seek for
cancellation of that allotment and allotment of
the said land to the Petitioner.
10.3. As regards the alleged backdating of the
document he submitted that the allotment
letter is only for 5 acres. The lease-cum-sale
agreement has also been executed for 5 acres
on 01.04.2011, the Petitioner did not raise any
grievance at that point of time.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
11. Sri.S.S.Haveri., learned counsel appearing for
Respondents No.5 and 6 submit that;
11.1. There is no backdating of the allotment letter,
the date as entered is a typographic error, all
the details other than the date are proper and
correct. Allotment of 5 acres has been made to
the Respondent No.6 at a rate of
Rs.22,75,000/- out of which a sum of
Rs.5,66,250/- was paid on 18.10.2012 and the
balance of Rs.1,08,08,750/- was required to be
paid within 180 days on or before 22.07.2013.
11.2. The concerned authority has signed the
allotment letter with the date 22.01.2013 as
can be seen from the original document. The
standard conditions attached to the allotment
letter has also been signed by the concerned
authority with the date 22.01.2013 written by
hand. Thus, the date on the allotment letter
ought to have been 22.01.2013. However,
since the allotment was made in January, the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
person who has typed it has probably typed it
as "22.01.2012" instead of "2013". He
therefore submits that the right which has been
created in favour of Respondent No.6 by way of
such allotment cannot be disturbed.
12. Heard Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa., learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar.,
learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1,
Smt.Sukruta R., learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, Sri.Ashok N.Nayak., learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.3 & 4 and
Sri.S.S.haveri., learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.5 & 6. Perused papers.
13. The points that would arise for determination by this
Court are:
1. Can the allotee from the KIADB, if
restricting the allotment to a smaller
extent, claim the larger extent allotted
without having paid monies for the same?
2. Is the allotment made in favour of
Respondent No.6 in the present case bona
fide and genuine?
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
3. Whether any grounds have been made out
by the Petitioner for interference in the
matter?
4. What order?
14. I answer the above points as under:
15. Answer to point No.1: Can the allotee from the
KIADB, if restricting the allotment to a smaller
extent, claim the larger extent allotted without
having paid monies for the same?
15.1. The Petitioner, having participated in the Global
Investor Meet and the project having been
approved, resulting in principle approval for
allotment of 10 acres is not in dispute so also,
the allotment of 2 acres for establishment of
the Power Generation Unit is not in dispute.
15.2. It appears from the records that it is only on
account of the letter issued by the Petitioner on
23.06.2010 stating that "at present," we need 5
acres allotment for immediate activity and
future 5 acres for expansion. Hence, kindly allot
5 acres of land in Hanagawadi Industrial Area in
first phase and block 5 acres for future
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
allotment in the next year. The necessary 5%
initial deposit ID and EMD for 5 acres allotment
along with letter under (2) is enclosed herewith
for your reference and needful action.
15.3. Thus, it is this letter which forms the basis of
the entire dispute between the parties. The
Petitioner had indicated that "at present" only 5
acres allotment was needed, and payment was
made only for the said 5 acres. A request was
made by the Petitioner for blocking 5 acres for
future allotment and as such no amount was
paid for the said balance 5 acres. The issue
would have been different if the Petitioner had
made payment for the entire 10 acres and
requested the allotment of a balanced 5 acres
in the future. What has been done by the
Petitioner is restricting the allotment to 5 acres,
contending that the balanced 5 acres could be
allotted later on in future.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
15.4. Thus, it is on account of the actions of the
Petitioner that a partial allotment for 5 acres
was made by KIADB on 28.07.2010, in
furtherance of which payments were made
subsequently as under;
Rt.No. Date D.D.No. Bank Amount
0026313 17.07.2010 038736 Axis Bank Rs.5,97,500.00
138726 26.02.2011 022947, Shiva Rs.25,00,000.00
026775, Bank/Axis
026788 Bank
138766 15.03.2011 026870 --do-- Rs.25,00,000.00
138820 24.03.2011 026929, --do-- Rs.55,00,000.00
026934,
026935
138824 25.03.2011 022430 Shiva Bank Rs.2,77,500.00
Total Rs.1,13,75,000.00
15.5. A perusal of the above table indicates that it is
only on 25.03.2011 i.e., only in the month of
March-2011 that most of the amount was paid
by the Petitioner. The Petitioner in the month of
June-2010 when it wrote the letter had only
made payment of EMD and all other payments
came to be made subsequently. It is on account
of payment of Rs.5,97,500/- on 17.07.2010
that the allotment letter dated 28.07.2010
came to be issued. Even after the allotment
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
was made, it is after 8 months that the balance
amounts were paid.
15.6. The lease-cum-sale agreement had been
executed on 01.04.2011 after the said payment
was made, this indicates that the Petitioner did
not have the monies to make payment of the
balance amount, and it is only after the
payment that the lease-cum-sale agreement
was executed in respect of 5 acres. It is not in
dispute that as regard the balance 5 acres, no
amount has been paid by the Petitioner as EMD
or otherwise.
15.7. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner has itself
restricted the allotment to 5 acres and as such
cannot claim 10 acres to have been allotted
when the Petitioner itself deferred the allotment
of 5 acres to be made in future for expansion.
15.8. Land in KIADB area being high in demand
another entrepreneur having submitted an
application for allotment of lands viz.,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
Respondent No.6, the KIADB allotted 5 acres of
the land which is still remaining unutilized to
Respondent No.6 under a letter dated
22.01.2012.
15.9. A perusal of the said letter indicates that the
State Level Single Window Clearance
Committee in its meeting held on 18.05.2012
had approved the project of the respondent
No.6 an amount of Rs.5,66,250/- had been paid
by respondent No.6 on 18.10.2012.
15.10. An allotment letter came to be issued dated
22.01.2012 much has been sought to be made
out as regard this date being wrong and that
the allotment letter has been backdated. It is
in that background that respondent No.6 was
called upon to place the original of the
allotment letter on record which has been
produced a memo dated 14.11.2024. A perusal
of the original letter indicates that the
Development Officer who is the authorized
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
signatory, has signed the said allotment letter
and the standard conditions attached to the
allotment letter by dating it as 22.01.2013.
Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the
date found on the allotment letter dated
22.01.2012 is a typographical error and as
rightly contended by Sri. Haveri learned counsel
for Respondent No.5 and 6 it could be on
account of the change of the year from 2012 to
2013, at the time of typing in the month of
January 2013, the typist has typed it as
"22.01.2012" instead of "22.01.2013" or it
could be a pure typographical error of typing
2012 instead of 2013, they typing keys on the
keyboard for 2 and 3 being next to each other.
15.11. Apart from this, a perusal of the allotment
letter and the other documents which have
been produced by Respondent No.6 and the
KIADB, it is seen that the project of Respondent
No.6 had been approved on 18.05.2012
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
payment has been made by Respondent No.6
prior to the date of allotment. When all the
surrounding circumstance are taken together, it
cannot be said that there is a backdating of the
allotment letter in my consider opinion, it is
only a typographical error.
15.12. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that
it is the petitioner allotee who has
restricted the allotment to 5 acres and has
made payment only for 5 acres. The
allotment letter indicates the allotment to
be for 5 acres, so does the lease-cum-sale
agreement. Thus, the Petitioner cannot
claim that the allotment is made for 10
acres.
16. Answer to point No.2: Is the allotment made in
favour of Respondent No.6 in the present case
bona fide and genuine?
16.1. This aspect has also been considered while
answering point No.1. The respondent No.6
project has been cleared by the Single Window
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
Agency as regards which payment has been
made by respondent No.6 and subsequently an
allotment letter issued.
16.2. The only contention of the Petitioner is that it is
concocted and backdated. This aspect has been
considered hereinabove and have come to a
categorical conclusion that there is no
concoction or backdating of the allotment letter.
It is only a bonafide typographical error
committed in typing "year".
16.3. Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that
the allotment made in favour of
respondent No.6 is bona fide and genuine.
17. Answer to point No.3: Have any grounds been
made out by the Petitioner for interference in
the matter?
17.1. Though looked at it technically, the Petitioner
has restricted the allotment to 5 acres and the
balance 5 acres has been allotted to respondent
No.6.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
17.2. What would have to be seen by this Court is
also that the Petitioner has established its
project on the 5 acres allotted and has been
carrying on his business in the said 5 acres. The
Petitioner has also set up the Power
Manufacturing Unit in the other 2 acres that
have been allotted. The project of the
Petitioner is for establishment of a Rice Mill, the
photographs which have been produced
indicate that a large extent of the Rice Mill has
already been established and is in operation,
the same on enquiry is confirmed by Sri.Ashok
N.Nayak., learned counsel for KIADB.
17.3. On the filing of the above petition, an interim
order was passed by this Court as prayed for in
the petition. Thereby restraining the
respondents not to allot or hand over
possession of the 5 acres of land in plot No.45-
A Haganawadi Industrial Area, Harihara Taluk,
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
Davangere District to respondents No.5 and 6
or any other person concerned.
17.4. It is in that background that the said 5 acres
has not been handed over to Respondent No.6
and has continued to be unutilized till date. In
such circumstances being of the considered
opinion that interest and justice would be
served by allotting these remaining 5 acres to
the Petitioner itself with Respondent No.6 being
allotted land in any other nearby industrial area
formed immediately after the Hanagawadi
Industrial Estate.
17.5. Learned counsel for the KIADB Sri.Ashok
N.Nayak., was directed to obtain instruction
make his submission, if any other land would
be available for allotment to Responent 6.
Sri.Ashok N.Nayak., learned counsel for
respondents No.3 & 4 on receiving instructions
has submitted that lands are available and
could be allotted to Respondent No.6.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
17.6. Sri.S.S.Haveri., learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.6, after obtaining instructions
made his submission that Respondent No.6 is
willing to take allotment in the nearby industrial
area subject to Respondent No.6 not being
required to make payment of any further
amount and the amount at which the land has
been allotted to Respondent No.6 not being
changed.
17.7. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, was called upon to enquire from the
Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner would be
willing to avail allotment of the balance 5 acres
at the current market value and to file an
affidavit in that regard. An affidavit dated
06.03.2025 has been filed of Sri.Prabhudev
Lingabasappa Churi, the Managing Director of
the Petition Company stating that the Petitioner
is willing to accept the 5 acres of land abutting
the land of the Petitioner at the present value
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
as already fixed by the Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board in respect of similar
area of industrial plot in Hanagawadi Industrial
Estate.
17.8. It is in that background that Sri.Ashok N.Nayak
was directed to place on record the current
tentative allotment value in Hanagawadi
industrial area. Sri.Ashok N. Nayak., learned
counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 submit that in
respect of the other industrial area where
allotment is proposed to be made can be made
to respondent No.6 at the tentative value of
Rs.83.5 lakhs per acre. Thus, if respondent
No.6 were to be allotted 5 acres of land without
making payment of any further amount, then
the KIADB would be put to a loss unless the
Petitioner made payment of the very same
amount.
17.9. It is in that background that equity would have
to be done to all the parties, as such an
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114
WP No. 3764 of 2013
opportunity would have to be given to the
Petitioner to make payment of the amounts
fixed for the land which would be allotted to
respondent No.6 so that 5 acres abutting the
land of the Petitioner can be allotted to the
Petitioner.
17.10. Hence, I answer point No.3, by holding
that equity would require this Court to
interfere in the matter.
18. Answer to point No.4: What order?
18.1. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly allowed.
ii. The allotment letter dated 22.1.2012/22.01.2013 issued by the respondent No.3 in favor of respondent No.6 is kept under suspension for a period of four months from today.
iii. The Petitioner is provided an opportunity to make payment towards the land which would
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 be allotted to Respondent No.6, taking into account the amounts already paid by Respondent No.6 the differential amount to be paid within a period of four months, the due amounts to be communicated by Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner within 30 days from today.
iv. If the said payments are made within the aforesaid period, respondent No.3 is directed to allot 5 acres in the neighbouring industrial estate to respondent No.6 within four weeks of such payment.
v. On the aforesaid payment made by the Petitioner and the allotment made to respondent No.6, Respondent No.3 is directed to allot the remaining 5 acres unutilized land in plot No.45-A of Hanagawadi Industrial Area, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks of the allotment being made to Respondent No.6. vi. In the event of the Petitioner not availing the benefit of the above order and not making payment of the differential amount towards the plot to be allotted to respondent No.6 within a period of the aforesaid four months from today,
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 the benefit would stand rescinded, and the above writ petition would stand dismissed. vii. The above order having been passed taking into account the peculiarity of the facts herein, the same shall not be treated as a precedent.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1