- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5632 WP No. 30662 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 30662 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. PASCAL CUTINHO S/O SRI. NICHOLAS CUTINHO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CROSPADAVU HOUSE, PERMUDE VILLAGE, MANGALUR TALUK, MANGALORE, D.K-575 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KESHAVA BHAT.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANALORE SEZ LIMITED, III FLOOR, MUDA BUILDING, ASHOKNAGAR, URVA STORES, MANGALURU-575 006. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. VICE PRESIDENT, MANGALORE SEZ LIMITED., III FLOOR MUDA BUILDING, ASHOKNAGAR, URVA STORES, MANGALURU-575 006. 3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), INDUSTRIAL AREA, BAIKAMPADY, MANGALURU-575 011. 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5632 WP No. 30662 of 2019 VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA., AGA FOR R4; SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & 3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR LISTED, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Deepak., counsel on behalf of Sri.Keshava Bhat.A., for the petitioner, Sri.Vijay Krishna Bhat.M., counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Manjunatha Rayappa., AGA for respondent No.4 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 3 to issue title deeds (hakku pathra) to the petitioner in respect of Site No.F-08 formed in survey number 148/4 of Kulai village, Mangalore Taluk, D.K. District. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5632 WP No. 30662 of 2019 4. The petitioner contends that the land in Sy.No.47/1A1B bearing Door No.3/83 was acquired by the third respondent - KIADB. The petitioner also contended that an alternate site was allotted to his mother, however, title deeds (hakku pathra) has not been issued. Hence, he is before this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to issue the title deeds. Except for saying that his mother has been allotted an alternative site, there is nothing on record to show that neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's mother were allotted an alternate site. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be accorded in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12