- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11467 WP No. 12382 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12382 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA SILK TWISTERS AND WEAVERS HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.90/23, 2-B, SRI MULAKANTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, VITTAL NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 026. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY S. SRINIVAS MURTHY REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT 1960 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. LAKSHMI IYENGAR SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATARAMANA K. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11467 WP No. 12382 of 2024 BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.03.2024 BEARING NO.RD 201 LGB 2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - Karnataka Silk Twisters and Weavers House Building Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to ‘the Society’ for short) is at the doors of this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 16.03.2024, which declines the request to the petitioner for payment on instalment basis in terms of the allotment and seeks consequential mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 16.01.2024. 2. Heard Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Shamath Naik, learned HCGP for the respondents and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel, who was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11467 WP No. 12382 of 2024 directed to assist the Court on a particular illustration made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is said to be a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act on 29.12.1992. The Society applies for grant of land at the hands of the government; the government accedes to the request of the petitioner and grants 25 acres of land. The issue is not with regard to the grant, the issue is payment that is directed to be made by the Society, by the government towards the grant so made. The grant is made for a sum of ₹7,06,06,000/- The petitioner submits a representation on 16.01.2024, seeking permission for payment of the aforesaid amount by way of instalments, on the score that the petitioner is a Society, which is running a scheme for weavers and twisters and would not be in a position to pay the entire amount in one-go. The representation comes to be rejected and the rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to place reliance upon - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11467 WP No. 12382 of 2024 an illustration where the KIADB has granted concession of payment of amount within 3 months to one company by name JSW and further quotes another illustration, where the amount is permitted to be paid in instalments. Seeking the same prayer, the learned senior counsel submits the petitioner has to be shown some indulgence by the government as the amount to be paid in one-go is virtually impossible. 5. Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submissions by contending that there is no case where land is granted and the State has shown indulgence by permitting to pay the amount on instalments and handing over the possession at the same time. He would submit that in lease cum sale agreement cases, the amount has to be paid in its entirety as directed, failing which, the possession would not be handed over to the grantee. 6. Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel representing KIADB would submit that the learned senior counsel for the petitioner cannot draw parallel to the concession shown to JSW, as it was an acquisition of the year 1982 and has a chequered history. Insofar as the other illustration is concerned, the learned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11467 WP No. 12382 of 2024 counsel - Sri B.B.Patil, submits that it is for the government to take a decision, as the grant is from the hands of the government. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel representing the KIADB and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The grant is made by the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (‘The Rules’ for short). Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on Rule 27 of the Rules, which permits certain relaxation at the hands of the government. The Rule reads as follows: “27. Powers of the State Government :- Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rules, the State Government may, suo motu, or on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of any case or classes of cases, it is just and reasonable to relax any of the provisions of these rules, it may, by order direct such relaxation, recording the reasons for such relaxation, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the orders and thereupon lands may be granted in such a case or classes of cases in accordance with such direction. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11467 WP No. 12382 of 2024 Therefore, the petitioner’s representation dated 16.01.2024 should now merit consideration in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules supra. 9. As submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the possession of the granted land would be given only after payment in its entirety, to which the learned senior counsel would submit that in the event the representation is considered, all other reliefs that they are seeking could be made subject to the outcome of the representation. However, she would submit that within 2 weeks `1/- crore would be paid to the government. 10. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned endorsement dated 16.03.2024 stands quashed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11467 WP No. 12382 of 2024 c. Mandamus issues to respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 16.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner. d. The petitioner shall pay `1/- crore within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the State while considering the representation of the petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules supra, shall bear in mind that `1/- crore is already paid towards the instalment and appropriate orders be passed within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:PH