Karnataka High Court
Sri K Gajendran vs Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 31 August, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 10828 OF 2012 AND
13471-503 OF 2012 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. K.Gajendran,
Son of K.Venkatapati Naidu,
Aged about 64 years,
No.255, 'Sri Nilayam',
7th Main, 4th Cross,
Dollars Layout,
J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
2. Sri. p.Sheik Allauddin,
Son of Pitchaiappa Rowuthar,
Aged about 62 years,
No.81/9 R.B.I. Colony,
2nd Cross, 8th Main Road,
East Byrasandra,
Bangalore - 560 011.
3. Sri. M. Thangam,
Son of A. Muthualugu,
Aged about 58 years,
2
No.28, APMC Yard,
Binnypet,
Bangalore - 560 023.
4. Sri. K.G. Purushotham,
Son of K. Govindaswamy Naidu,
Aged about 57 years,
No.47, APMC Yard,
Binnypet,
Bangalore - 560 023.
5. Sri. T.V. Naashimalu,
Son of Late T.Venataswamy Naidu,
Aged about 46 years,
No.1250, 2nd Cross,
20th Main, J.P.Nagar,
2nd Phase, Bangalore - 560 078.
6. Sri. T.V.Chitty Babu,
Son of T. Venkata Swamy,
Aged about 48 years,
No.302, 3rd Main,
6th Cross, OMBR Layout,
Dooda Banaswadi,
Bangalore - 560 043.
7. Sri. P.S.Ramaswamy,
Son of R. Sadasivam,
Aged about 51 years,
No.116, M.R.Lane,
Manvarthpet,
Bangalore - 560 053.
8. Sri. N. Mani Vasakam,
Son of S.Nagappa Pilli,
3
Aged about 58 years,
No.809, 5th Main Road,
5th Cross, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
9. Sri. K. Selvam,
Son of M.A. Kalliappan,
Aged about 58 years,
No.30, Chickalasandra Main Road,
Behind Muneswara Temple,
Hanumagiri Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 061.
10.Sri. Ananda Parameshwaran,
Son of Nateshan Pillaiah,
Aged about 72 years,
No.226, 32nd 'A' Cross,
7th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 078.
11.Sri. Krishna,
Son of A. Marimuthu Pillai,
Aged about 51 years,
No.44, Sajjan Rao Circle,
V.V.Puram,
Bangalore - 560 004.
12.Sri. D.G. Kumar Velu,
Son of M. Jayaram,
Son of Aravimuthu Pillai,
Aged about 38 years,
No.42, Sajjan Rao Circle,
V.V.Puram,
Bangalore - 560 004.
4
13.Sri. Ashwaq Rahiman,
Son of S.Abdul Rehman,
Aged about 32 years,
No.4, 2nd 'B' Cross,
Roshan Colony,
Tilak Nagar,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 041.
14.Sri. T.A.Yusuf Ali,
Late Wife of Noor Aishiya,
Aged about 49 years,
No.12/2, Rizwan Majeed Road,
22nd Main, 15th Cross,
J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
15.Sri. B.Abdul Rasheed,
Son of Bashu Sahib,
C/o. Metro Cars,
Aged about 70 years,
Opposite Kuchlamba Kalyan
Mandapam,
Jayanagar 2nd Block,
Bangalore - 560 011.
16.Sri. Hafeezur Rehman,
Son of T.K. Abdul Sukur Saib,
Aged about 57 years,
Roshan Colony,
Tilak Nagar,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 041.
5
17.Sri. T.S. Karuppaiah,
Son of Solamuthu Raja,
Aged about 62 years,
No.615/C, 30th Cross,
10th 'A' Main,
Jayanagar 4th 'T' Block,
Bangalore - 560 011.
18.Sri. H.Habeebulla,
Son of Hussain Mohammed,
Aged about 72 years,
No.9/4, 3rd Main Road,
5th Cross, Byatarayanapura,
Bangalore - 560 026.
19.Sri. M.Deenadayal,
Son of N.Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 48 years,
No.33/2, Sadavani 1st Cross,
3rd Main Canara Bank Layout,
Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore - 560 061.
20.Sri. B. Kayal Vizhi,
Wife of B.Bhaskar,
Aged about 53 years,
No.301, 3rd Floor,
East West Residency,
24th Main, J.P.Nagar,
7th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
21.Sri. G. Hari Krishna,
Son of G. Govindaswamy Naidu,
Aged about 54 years,
6
No.39, Udayanagara 1st Cross,
Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore - 560 061.
22.Sri. M.A. Jinnah D Ganesh,
Son of S. Durai Pandiyan,
Aged about 50 years,
No.155, 2nd Cross,
Canara Bank Colony,
Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore - 560 061.
23.Sri. Syed Azam,
Son of Syed Anwar,
Aged about 47 years,
No.2, 1st Cross,
BDA Layout,
1st Block, East Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 011.
24.Sri. K. Rajamalai,
Son of Kuppaswamy Goundar,
Aged about 45 years,
No.27, P.V.R.Road,
Ranasinghpet,
Bangalore - 560 053.
25.Sri. K.Venkatesh,
Son of A. Kanniah Naidu,
Aged about 54 years,
No.42/2, 4th Cross,
11th Main, R.K. Layout,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore - 560 070.
7
26.Sri. D.A.Nagabishen,
Son of Late Ramachandra Rao,
Aged about 59 years,
No.122, 1st C Cross,
5th Block, 3rd Phase,
3rd Stage, Banashankari,
Bangalore - 560 085.
27.Sri. Zainullauddin,
Son of Sultan Salaudin,
Aged about 60 years,
No.2145, East End 'G' Main,
9th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore.
28.Sri. Zaheeruddin,
Son of Sultan Salauddin,
Aged about 52 years,
No.64, Vinayaka Market,
G.P.Street,
Bangalore - 560 002. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Advocate for Shri. Reuben
Jacob, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
2nd Floor, Rashtrathona Parishath,
No.14/3A, Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Chief Executive
Officer / Executive Member.
8
2. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Commerce and
Industries, M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001,
By its Secretary.
3. M/s. Pash Space International (P)
Limited, No.135,
1st Stage, 10th Cross,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 560 038,
By its Managing Director,
Sri. A. Alam Pasha.
4. Sri. A. Alam Pasha,
Son of Late P. Ameer,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.135,
1st Stage, 10th Cross,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 560 038. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. B.B.Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri. B.M. shyam Prasad, Advocate for M/s. Shyam Prasad and
Associates for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
Shri. R.B. Satyanarayana Singh, High Court Government
Pleader for Respondent No.2)
******
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification
dated 12.5.2004, issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 vide Annexure-A, the
Notification Dated 12.5.2004, issued under Section 1(3) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas, Development Act, 1966 vide
9
Annexure-B, the Notification dated 12.5.2004, issued under
Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, 1966 vide Annexure-C and the Notification dated
28.10.2004, issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 vide Annexure-D to
the Writ Petition , in so far as the schedule lands are concerned
and etc;
These Writ Petitions are coming on for Hearing this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri P.S.Rajagopal, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petition being listed before the court for orders on applications seeking vacation of the order of stay, the petition is considered for final disposal, given the facts and circumstances and at the instance of the counsel for the parties.
3. The background to the present petition is as follows:
The petitioners are 28 in number. It transpires that land in Survey Nos.133/1, 133/2, 133/3, 133/5 and 133/6 of 10 Doddathogur village and Survey No.41/1 of Chikkathogur village, in Bangalore South Taluk, totally measuring 12 acres 10 guntas, were purchased by one Anil Kumar Gupta and Kundanlal Kanoria under three different sale deeds, in the year 1981. Anil Kumar Gupta had purchased certain lands under two sale deeds dated 2.4.1981 and 15.7.1981. Anil Kumar Gupta and Kundanlal Kanoria, jointly, had purchased another parcel of land under a sale deed dated 11.6.1981.
It further transpires that in the year 1983, an Association, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, in the name and style of Plantain Merchants Association, comprising of members who were plantain merchants, had approached the said Gupta and Kanoria for purchase of the said lands. They had agreed to sell the lands in favour of the Association, which intended to form house sites for allotment to its members, namely, the plantain merchants and accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into on 9.11.1983 by the said Gupta and Kanoria in favour of the Association. 11 The total sale consideration in respect of the entire extent of land was Rs.5,50,000/-. It transpires that the entire amount was paid in four instalments, which is evidenced by receipts dated 4.12.1983, 27.12.1983, 19.1.1984 and 21.9.1989. Upon payment of the entire sale consideration, a Memorandum of Understanding appears to have been executed on 21.9.1989 in favour of the Association and receipt of the sale consideration was also acknowledged in the said Memorandum of Understanding. Simultaneously, an irrevocable General Power of Attorney was agreed to be executed by the vendors in favour of the purchasers and it was undertaken that the vendors would execute registered sale deeds in respect of parcels of land, as and when required by the Association, in favour of its members and possession was purportedly be delivered under the said Memorandum of Understanding. It was also understood that the vendors were giving up their right and title pursuant to the same.
12
Consequently, on 22.9.1989, an irrevocable General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the Association empowering the Association to form a layout over the said extent of land and to execute deeds of conveyance in respect of the land on behalf of the owners. It is claimed that the Association did form a layout of residential sites and allotted site numbers to the different sites, culled out of the said lands. A resolution is said to have been passed by the Association on 10.5.1990, to make over a portion of the lands to the Banana Commission Agents Association, which is again a registered Society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,1960, for allotment of sites to its members, who apparently were Banana Commission agents. It was further agreed between that association and its members similarly to execute sale deeds in favour of its individual members. The petitioners claim to be the members of the Plantain Merchants Association and also claim that they have been allotted sites by their Association and registered sale deeds also have been executed in respect of 13 the said sites. The particulars of the site numbers are given in the body of the petition. It is not necessary to elucidate the same hereunder.
The petitioners further claim that pursuant to the sale deeds, khata has been endorsed in their names by the local authority, namely, the Grama Panchayath, which has also collected taxes from them, from time to time.
The petitioners claim that as matters stood thus, the erstwhile owners, namely, Gupta and Kanoria, represented by the General Power of Attorney holders, are said to have executed five sale deeds, all of them dated 29.4.2002, in favour of one Alam Pasha, the fourth respondent and his daughters as well as one C.R.Vasanth Babu and one Chedukuri Prasad and that Vasanth Babu and Chedukuri Prasad have in turn sold portions of the land purchased by them to Alam Pasha. This is notwithstanding the fact that all of the very same lands being the subject matter of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the ultimate beneficiaries of the 14 second sale transactions is Alam Pasha, his wife and daughters as well. Vasanth Babu and Chedukri Prasad were only acting as benamidars in favour of Alam Pasha.
It is therefore stated that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (Hereinafter referred to as ' the KIADB', for brevity) apparently, acting at the instance of Alam Pasha had issued Notifications dated 12.5.2004, under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as ' the KIADB Act', for brevity), declaring the very lands in question, namely, the extent measuring 12 acres 10 guntas which had been formed into a layout and sites had been culled out, as an industrial area. Pursuant to the Preliminary Notification, a Final Notification was also issued dated 28.10.2004. It is only in retrospect that the petitioners learnt of the said Notifications since they had not been issued any notice though they were owners of portions of lands in question. It is also significant that KIADB chose to notify only the identified extent of 12 acres 12 guntas 15 comprising of the very lands, which were purchased by the Associations, as aforesaid and that no other items of land are involved at all. The KIADB had further allotted the entire portion of the land, totally measuring 11 acres 28 guntas in favour of M/s Pash Space International (Private) Limited (Hereinafter referred to as ' the PSIPL', for brevity) , the third respondent in the writ petition, represented by the fourth respondent Alam Pasha, as its Managing Director, and a registered sale deed dated 3.12.2004 is also said to have been executed in respect of the said extent. The petitioners claim that they were not aware of the said acquisition as no notices were issued at any point of time and it is only after knowing the fact of such acquisition proceedings and the subsequent allotment, since there was no activity on the land in question over the years and only when the third respondent sought to put up certain construction pursuant to the above said events, that the petitioners grew suspicious of the same and it is then in retrospect, that the petitioners have been able to ascertain the 16 details, under which, the third respondent was seeking to lay claim over the land in question. It is in this background that the present petitions are filed seeking to question the action of the KIADB in having undertaken the acquisition proceedings in the first instance and allotting the land in favour of respondent no.3, which is nothing but a creation of respondent no.4 and alleging mala fides and an unholy nexus between KIADB on the one hand and the third respondent represented by the fourth respondent on the other.
4. The petition is vehemently contested by respondents - 3 and 4 and the KIADB.
5. Respondents - 3 and 4, in their statement of objections, contend that there is gross suppression of facts, as for instance, it is pointed out that there were various proceedings instituted by Vasanth Kumar and Chedukuri Prasad claiming the compensation payable in respect of the land acquired vis-à-vis Alam Pasha, who was also claiming the said 17 compensation amount, as for instance, in a civil suit in O.S.952/2005 connected with LAC 49/2005 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, which suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 15th December 2008, as well as writ proceedings in WP 22194/2005, which was disposed of by an order dated 19.12.2007 and WP 24998/2005 and connected writ petitions, dismissed by an order dated 25.6.2007. And in particular, in the civil suit above named, the first petitioner herein was examined as a witness and he has categorically admitted in the course of his evidence as to he having had transactions with Alam Pasha and having received certain amounts of money. This was sufficient evidence of the petitioners knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and the fact that the petitioners had given up their rights in respect of the land after receiving consideration from Alam Pasha over time and it is after receiving such benefits, that the petitioners have sought to initiate proceedings to question the acquisition 18 proceedings at this late point of time, feigning ignorance of the acquisition proceedings. By virtue of such admission itself, the petition would have to be dismissed for suppression of facts.
Secondly, the delay and laches would be apparent since the first petitioner was fully aware of the acquisition proceedings and hence, cannot be permitted to question these proceedings at this remote point of time. Insofar as mala fides alleged are concerned, this is again a contention, which cannot be accepted on the face of it. The lands in question were agricultural lands and the same have been purchased by the fourth respondent as such, as admitted by the petitioners themselves and it is after such purchase, that a legitimate application had been made to the KIADB, seeking that a project for establishment of a Technology Park be considered and the same having been approved by the State Level Single Window Agency, as contemplated under the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 and further proceedings having been taken under the provisions of the KIADB Act and notifications 19 having been issued and ultimately a lease deed having been executed in favour of the third respondent - company, cannot be termed as mala fide. The respondents cannot be accused of any unholy nexus. Therefore, both in law and on facts, the petitioners do not have any locus to even present this writ petition.
Further, the petitioners admittedly have filed a civil suit questioning the sale transaction in favour of the present respondent no.4 and in any event, the suit is pending consideration, there is no interim order of temporary injunction or any kind of restraint in favour of the petitioners. In the light of which, unless the petitioners are in a position to work out their right in the pending suit, the petitioners being permitted to question the legitimate acquisition proceedings, which have been taken in accordance with law, cannot be tested in this writ petition at this point of time and would submit that the petition be dismissed in limine with costs. As it is further pointed out that respondent no.3 is put on a time-frame to establish the 20 project that was proposed and in view of the pending litigation over the years, not only the petitioners as well as the respondent no.3 would be hard-put to establish the project and any order of stay granted in respect of an activity that is proposed, would seriously jeopardize the interest of the third respondent and hence would submit that there is no warrant for interference by this court and the petition be dismissed.
6. While the counsel for the first respondent would submit that it is a statutory body, which cannot have any truck with either the petitioners or the respondents and it has acted on the basis of a representation made by respondent no.3 proposing the establishment of a project. The KIADB had no reason to doubt or suspect the bona fides of the applicant and has processed the request in the usual course and a State Level Single Window Agency established by the State Government, had examined the proposal and had recommended the same. It is pursuant to which, the KIADB has followed the procedure 21 prescribed in law and has taken all steps in accordance with law and cannot be accused of any mala fides or having had an unholy nexus with the third respondent or even the fourth respondent. In any event, the petitioners having approached the court below in respect of their alleged grievance would have to establish their right before a civil court and they cannot claim any right of ownership if the same has been disputed by the third respondent and the KIADB having acted on the representations of the third respondent, could not be expected to engage in a roving inquiry into the bona fides or claim to title by the third respondent in the first instance to be accused of having connived with the fourth respondent in acquiring the land and conferring the same on the third respondent for the establishment of its project. The allegations of the petitioners therefore rest on disputed questions of fact, which would have to be established in an appropriate forum and the present writ petition cannot proceed on a premise, which the petitioner seeks this court to accept as established, even without the same being 22 supported by any material. It is further pointed out that the inordinate delay in approaching this court insofar as the acquisition proceedings are concerned on the footing that the petitioners were unaware of the proceedings is not available to them in view of the proceedings being subject to the procedure prescribed in law, which raises a presumption that the world at large is placed on notice of the acquisition proceedings and therefore, there is no substance in the writ petition.
Alternatively, the learned Counsel would submit that since the KIADB's object is acquiring properties for and to enable industrial development and the lands in question having been acquired through due process of law, if there has to be an impediment in the further development of land only by virtue of the petitioners raising a contention that they have not been heard, though they were owners of the land, such an opportunity could be afforded to the petitioners to place their case before the KIADB, which could be considered in accordance with law notwithstanding the pending civil suit as 23 regards title to the property vis-à-vis the petitioners and the fourth respondent. It is further pointed out that the acquisition proceedings having been completed, any dispute between the fourth respondent and the petitioners could only relate to the compensation amount that is in deposit before the civil court by the KIADB. In the eye of law, the land stands vested in the State via KIADB and therefore, even if there is a dispute to be worked out between the petitioners and the fourth respondent as regards the compensation amount and it would be a matter between them, and the lands could be utilized usefully for industrial development. Therefore, it is in the interest of the KIADB to take the acquisition forward and, as an alternative, to suggest that it may even be possible to revert the proceedings to a stage where the petitioners could be given a hearing before further steps are taken in the acquisition proceedings.
7. By way of reply, the learned Senior Advocate, Shri Rajagopal would contend that the manner in which the sale deeds have been executed by the erstwhile owners in favour of 24 the fourth respondent is by recourse to devious means of indicating the lands sold to the fourth respondent as agricultural lands, whereas the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners have indicated the same by site numbers. It is this obvious circumstance which has enabled the fourth respondent to acquire these lands notwithstanding the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. Apart from this, the contention that the first petitioner was examined as a witness in OS.952/2005 and therefore admissions made therein should be held against the petitioners is also misleading, as that proceeding was not between the petitioners and the third respondent or the fourth respondent, but was a suit between the erstwhile owners and the fourth respondent and cannot, to that extent, be treated as an admission made, which would disentitle the petitioner to prefer this writ petition or to contend that they were fully aware of the acquisition proceedings and are therefore, estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings by virtue of delay and laches.
25
8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, whether this court can at the instance of the petitioners interfere in these proceedings and set at naught the acquisition proceedings in question would have to be answered only on the basis of the prima facie findings and certain admitted facts. The petitioners claim that they have purchased house sites formed in a layout over agricultural land. It is not placed on record that the layouts were duly sanctioned by the competent authority nor that there was conversion of the land and the layout was duly sanctioned by the competent authority. To that extent, the petitioners in the eye of law, could not have purchased agricultural lands as house sites. On the other hand, the fourth respondent claims to have purchased agricultural lands under five different sale deeds. To that extent, it is possible to assume that the lands remained as agricultural lands and it is agricultural land that has been acquired by the KIADB, for otherwise to recognize the lands as having been converted 26 for non-agricultural use and having been formed into house sites, would be placing a premium on the illegal acts in conversion of land and forming the same into house sites especially, when the two transactions have to be weighed against each other. The accusations of mala fides and fraud is a serious allegation, which would be the subject matter of a civil suit, which according to the petitioners, has been instituted. To the extent whether the petitioners would have a right as against the claim of respondent no.3 or respondent no.4, is therefore, subject to the decision of the civil court in the pending civil suit. It is also brought on record that insofar as the acquisition having been completed and compensation amount having been deposited in court, is locked up in dispute as between the respondent no.4 and the erstwhile owners and the further lease deed executed in favour of the third respondent is also seriously disputed by the KIADB and the same is subject matter of a pending writ petition filed by respondent no.3 in WP 33950/2011 before this court. In that background, the fact that 27 the first petitioner was a witness in a civil suit between the fourth respondent and the erstwhile owners of the land would lead to a presumption that they are not absolute strangers, in that, respondent no.4 was acquainted with petitioner no.1. The fact that the lands have been sold either as agricultural lands or as sites formed out of agricultural land and thereby having succeeded in two transactions having taken place in respect of the same properties, is again a question of fact which is to be adjudicated in the civil suit. In a disputed matter such as this, to proceed on the basis that the bona fides of the parties is above board and to permit acquisition proceedings to reach finality is not welcome and as regards which, this court cannot be a mute witness to the disputed transaction as between the parties. The fact that the respondent no.4 has offered the entire lands purchased by him to be acquired voluntarily and thereafter funnelled back to respondent no.3, of which he is the Managing Director, which according to the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners is itself a suspicious 28 transaction, which should have put the KIADB on guard as to the bona fides of the said respondent, is not a circumstance that can be readily accepted. But given the attendant circumstances, it is certainly an aspect to be addressed. In that view of the matter, if in order, the notification under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act to be sustained as being without any blemish, it would be necessary for the KIADB to be aware of the other circumstance which may or which may not have been brought to its attention, especially, in the light of the circumstance that the KIADB itself disputes the lease deed under which the third respondent is now claiming. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the matter be remitted for a fresh consideration, after affording an opportunity to the parties to have their say notwithstanding the long lapse of time and even possible knowledge on the part of the petitioners of any acquisition proceedings. For if this objection as to delay and laches is permitted, if it has the effect of respondent no.4 seeking advantage thereof, it cannot be a ground for turning the 29 petitioners out. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things, to permit the KIADB to hold a fresh hearing under Section 28(3) of the KIADB Act and to take further steps thereafter in accordance with law.
Therefore, without addressing the merits of the claims of either of the parties and without entering upon the controversy on factual aspects, as already stated, proceeding on prima facie findings, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure -D is quashed. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for a fresh consideration after notice to the petitioners and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the third respondent and respondent no.4 as well.
The further apprehension of respondent no.3 that by virtue of the notification under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act being quashed, it would place respondent no.3 at a serious disadvantage and therefore, would cripple the third respondent from completing the project in time, is an aspect, that would be the subject matter of consideration in the pending writ petition, 30 where the very lease deed, under which, he claims to be in possession being under a cloud.
The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. The petition stands disposed of in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv