- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9162 OF 2010 (GM-KSSIDC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 16176 OF 2010 (GM-KSSIDC) WRIT PETITION NO. 13629 OF 2012 (GM-KSSIDC) WRIT PETITION NO. 49823 OF 2019 (GM-KSSIDC) IN WP No. 9162/2010: BETWEEN: SRI. K.V. RAMESH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KUNDUR VILLAGE, KITALA NAGAMANGALA POST, UTTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD LIMITED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560044. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER KARNATAKA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, B.M. ROAD, TUMKUR. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.L.S.A.C. PRESIDENT TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KUMBALGODU SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE. 6. SMT. R. JYOTHI W/O SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BORALINGANAPALYA KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4; SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT 62.91 SQ.MTRS OF THE DIFFERENCE LAND FROM AND OUT OF THE MARGINAL LAND SITUATED ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF PLOT NO.15 AND TO ALLOT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE MARGINAL LAND BY COLLECTING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER RESPECT THEREOF CONSIDERING THE LETTERS DATED 28.02.2002 AND 24.01.2002, VIDE ANNEXURE-K & S AND ETC. IN WP NO. 16176/2010 BETWEEN: K.V. RAMESH S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROP. OF HOTEL MARUTHI, KUNDUR VILLAGE, K. NAGAMANGALA POST, KUNIGAL TTALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDING OFFICER, DLSAC MEETINGS, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR 3. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (KSSIDC) BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-560044. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (KSSIDC) BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-560044. 5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER DEVEOPLMENT CORPORATION LTD., (KSSIDC) B.M. ROAD, TUMKUR. 6. SMT. R.JYOTHI W/O. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF BORALINGANAPALYA KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 5; SRI. VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.KAI.VA.TUMA:KUNIGAL:NIVESHANA:MOULYA:2010/117 DATED 19.04.2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION (ANNEXURE N) AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13629/2012: BETWEEN: SMT. R. JYOTHI W/O RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT BORALINGANAPALYA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 2. KARNATAKA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD LIMITED, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560044 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF MANAGER KARNATAKA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, B.M. ROAD, TUMKUR. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.L.S.A.C. PRESIDENT, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KUMBALGODU SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE. 6. SMT. K.V. RATHNAMMA W/O THAMMANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PROPT. M/S SUSHMA HOLLOW BRICK INDUSTRIES, SPECIAL PLOT NO.14, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, B.M. ROAD, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 7. SRI. K.V. RAMESH S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROPT. M/S HOTEL MARUTHI, SPECIAL PLOT NO.15, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, B.M. ROAD, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4; SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. N. NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER NO.KAIVA:THUMA:KUNIGAL:NIVESHANA SPECIAL-27:HANCHIKE RADDATHI:2012/75 DATED 19.03.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-G CANCELING THE ALLOTMENT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER OF PLOT NO.SPECIAL 27 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ETC., IN WP NO. 49823/2019: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.V. RAMESH SON OF VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SRI. THAMMANNA GOWDA SON OF CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 2(a) SMT. K.V.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2(b) KUMARI. LAKSHMI SHREE K.T. D/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 2(c) KUMARI SUSHMA K.T. D/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 2(d) KUMAR SHANKAR GOWDA K.T. S/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUNDUR VILLAGE, K.N. MANGALA POST, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126 AND ALSO R/AT NO.124, 4 CROSS LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560091. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE RAJAJINAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560044 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, TUMKUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE TUMKUR-572101 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER EFFECTING CANCELLATION DATED 01.03.2016 BEARING NO.KAIVA:TUVA:KUNIGAL:SPECIAL-19:2015-16 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A). THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER In W.P.No.9162/2010, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot an area measuring 62.91 sq.mts of the deficit land from and out of the marginal land situated on the northern side of plot No.15 and to allot the remaining portion of the marginal land by collecting the amount payable by considering the letters dated 28.02.2002 and 24.01.2002. 2. W.P.No.16176/2010 is filed by the petitioner challenging an order bearing No.Kai.Va.Tuma:Kunigal:Niveshana:Moulya:2010/117 dated 19.04.2010 passed by the respondent No.3 canceling the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER allotment of special plot No.21 for non-payment of the allotment price within the time stipulated. 3. W.P.No.13629/2012 is filed by the petitioner to quash the letter bearing No.Kaiva:Thuma:Kunigal:Niveshana Special-27:Hanchike Raddathi:2012/75 dated 19.03.2012 issued by the respondent No.3 by which, the allotment of special plot No.27 was cancelled. 4. W.P.No.49823/2019 is filed by the petitioner challenging an order of cancellation bearing No. Kaiva:Thuma:Kunigal:Special-19:2015-16 dated 01.03.2016 issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of Special Plot No.19. 5. The facts put comprehensively are that Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, (henceforth referred to as 'KSSIDC' for short) had formed an industrial estate at Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru district. The industrial plots which are the subject matter of these writ petitions are the special plots bearing Nos.15, 19, 21 and 27. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER The placement of these plots in the industrial estate, which can be discerned from Annexure - R2 filed in W.P.No.9162/2010, is captured below:- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER *1. Though petitioner in W.P.No.9162/2010, W.P.No.16176/2010, W.P.No.49823/2019 claims that the sites marked as special plots - 19, 21 are marginal land of plot No.15, KSSIDC claims that they are numbered as special plots. *2. The petitioners shall be referred by their names for the sake of clarity and brevity. 6. (i) The petitioner in W.P.No.9162/2010 (Mr.K.V.Ramesh) was allotted special Plot No.15. He claimed that there was a shortfall of an area measuring 62.91 sq.mtrs., in the plot so allotted. (ii) He claims that this shortfall could be compensated by allotting a piece of marginal land, which is identified as special plot No.21 in the sketch shown above. He contends that he had filed several representations in that regard which were not considered inspite of directions by this Court in W.P.No.14675/2008. He is therefore before this Court for a direction to KSSIDC to allot the shortfall of 62.91 sq.mtr. in the marginal land identified as special plot No.21 in the sketch. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER (iii) He contends that later KSSIDC allotted special plot No.21 to him on 08.12.2009 and gave 45 days to pay the allotment price. Mr. K.V.Ramesh requested for measurement of special plot No.21 since he sensed some dispute. He requested for extension of time to deposit the allotment price on 25.01.2010, 10.02.2010 & 18.02.2010. He deposited Rs.30,000/- on 26.02.2010 and requested further time to pay the balance. However, KSSIDC cancelled the allotment of special plot No.21 in terms of an order dated 19.04.2010 and allotted it to Smt. R. Jyothi which is questioned in W.P.No.16176/2010. (iv) It appears that Mr. K.V.Ramesh was also allotted marginal land identified as special plot No.19 in the sketch as it lay adjacent to special plot No.15. However, the rates at which, special plot No.19 was allotted to Mr. K.V.Ramesh was far lesser than the actual rates that he was bound to pay. It is alleged that the said Mr.K.V.Ramesh had conspired and colluded with some officials of the KSSIDC in getting the allotment of special plot No.19 at a reduced price and that KSSIDC after coming to know about the illegality, had initiated - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER proceedings against the concerned official and had also passed an order punishing him. The KSSIDC had informed Mr. K.V.Ramesh that special plot No.19 cannot be allotted at old rates. Mr. K.V.Ramesh has challenged this order in W.P.No.49823/2019. (v) Apart from plot No.15 and 19, the said Mr.K.V.Ramesh claimed that special plot No.27 was marginal land and therefore, he was entitled for allotment of said marginal land as his special plot No.15 lay adjacent to it. He had also encroached into a portion of the said special plot No.27 on the premise that there was a short fall in special plot No.15. (vi) In the meanwhile, KSSIDC without following the due process had allotted special plot No.27 to Smt. R. Jyothi (the petitioner in W.P.No.13629/2012) on 09.04.2010. When the said allotment to Smt. R.Jyothi was alive, a portion of special plot No.27 was allotted to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma, the respondent No.6. Later, the allotment of special plot No.27 to Smt. R. Jyothi was cancelled for non-payment of the allotment price which she questioned in W.P.No.13629/2012. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Smt. R.Jyothi also questioned the order of allotment of a portion of special plot No.27 to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma in W.P.No.13629/2012. (vii) Mr. K.V.Ramesh is therefore before this Court challenging the cancellation of allotments of special plot Nos.19 & 21, while Smt. R.Jyothi has questioned cancellation and allotment of a portion of special plot No.27 to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma. 7. The learned counsel appearing for Mr.K.V.Ramesh submitted that he had filed W.P.No.19205/2005 seeking allotment of the marginal land namely, special plot No.19 on the ground that it lay adjacent to special plot No.15 but KSSIDC had issued a tender notification dated 30.05.2005. Writ Petition No.19205/2005 was allowed in terms of an order dated 11.03.2008. Thereafter, KSSIDC challenged the said order in W.A.No.787/2008. The division bench in terms of the judgment dated 09.08.2012 directed KSSIDC to find out whether special plot No.15 was a marginal land or an independent site and if it was an independent site, KSSIDC was directed to conduct a fresh auction in accordance with law and confirm the sale in - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER favour of the person who offers the highest bid and if it is a marginal land, it was for KSSIDC to allot the marginal land in accordance with its Rules. He contends that following the above, the KSSIDC had allotted plot No.19 to Mr. K.V.Ramesh. He contends that later the respondent had arbitrarily cancelled the allotment on the ground that Mr. K.V.Ramesh had not paid four times the allotment price towards the allotment of special plot No.19. He contends that Mr. K.V.Ramesh is now willing to pay the amount determined by the KSSIDC along with reasonable interest and prays that the allotment of special plot No.19 be restored. 8. He contends that Mr. K.V.Ramesh had laid sewage and water lines beneath special plot No.27 as that lay adjacent to septic tank and therefore, KSSIDC is bound to allot the said marginal land to Mr. K.V.Ramesh. He submits that portion of plot No.27 is already allotted to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma and that she has levelled a portion of special plot No.27 and has annexed it into special Plot No.14. He therefore, contends that if the short fall of 62.91 sq.mtrs is allotted to Mr. K.V.Ramesh in plot No.27, the remaining area would be very less which - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER cannot be allotted for any industrial or commercial activity and therefore, it would be prudent to allot the remaining portion of special plot No.27 to Mr. K.V.Ramesh. 9. As regards, special plot No.21, the learned counsel for Mr. K.V.Ramesh contends that allotment of said plot was cancelled on extraneous consideration, as the petitioner was willing to pay cost as determined by KSSIDC but it was cancelled so that it could be allotted to Smt. R. Jyothi, who was not entitled for allotment as she did not have any plot adjacent to special plot No.21. 10. The learned counsel for Smt. R. Jyothi contended that when once special plot No.27 was allotted to Smt. R. Jyothi, KSSIDC could not have allotted a portion of it to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma without following the due process of law. He also contends that Mr.K.V.Ramesh and Smt. K.V.Rathnamma are siblings and are trying to gain monopoly by getting the plots in and around plot No.15 allotted by claiming that they are all marginal land. The learned counsel for Smt. R.Jyothi contends that the cancellation of allotment of special plot No.27 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER on the ground that the petitioner did not pay the amount in time is arbitrary and therefore, warrants interference. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the KSSIDC submitted that if Mr. K.V.Ramesh is willing to pay the present allotment price in respect of special plot No.19 along with interest, KSSIDC would not have any objection for restoration of the allotment in favour of the petitioners. She however contends that in so far as plot No.27 is concerned, Mr. K.V.Ramesh has encroached into a portion of special plot No.27, though a portion of it was allotted to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma. She contends that special plot No.27 actually measures 260 sq.mtrs. and could be easily allotted for any industrial activity. She also contends that special plot No.21 which lies adjacent to special plot No.27 could be jointly utilised for some industrial activity and therefore, the allotment of special plot No.21 and its cancellation be upheld so that the said two properties could be put up for auction. She further contends that the petitioner in W.P.No.9162/2010 is not conducting any industrial activity but has only established a hotel in special plot No.15 and hence, it does not cater to the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER needs of an industrial area. She therefore contends that the petitioner in W.P.No.9162/2010 cannot be allowed to monpolize and grab all the properties in and around special plot No.15. Besides this, she contends that special plot No.14 is allotted to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma who is the sister of Mr. K.V.Ramesh. 12. The learned counsel for Smt. K.V.Rathnamma (respondent No.6 in W.P.No.13629/2012) contends that portion of special plot No.27 was lawfully allotted to her on 23.08.2010 and that all formalities such as execution of lease cum sale handing over possession etc., are done by KSSIDC and she has leveled the land and annexed the property into special plot No.14. She therefore, contends that the allotment of portion of special plot No.27 cannot be undone at this point in time. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the KSSIDC as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.13629/2012. 14. A sketch of the plots which is captured above would give a glimpse of the dispute thereby lessening reference to burdensome pleadings. The special plot No.15 was allotted to - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Mr.K.V.Ramesh, while special plot No.14 was allotted to his sister - Smt. K.V.Rathnamma. Mr. K.V.Ramesh laid a claim to special plot No.19 on the ground that it was a marginal land. The said special plot No.19 was allotted to him by treating it as a marginal land (highlighting by Court) by KSSIDC. However, the officer concerned instead of allotting the special plot No.19 at the prevailing allotment price had allotted the said land to Mr.K.V.Ramesh at reduced allotment price. As a result, KSSIDC took out steps for cancellation of allotment of special plot No.19, which is challenged in W.P.No.49823/2019. Now that Mr. K.V.Ramesh and KSSIDC have come to an understanding that Mr.K.V.Ramesh shall pay the amount as demanded by KSSIDC along with reasonable interest, the dispute regarding the cancellation of the allotment of special plot No.19 is put to rest and therefore, W.P.No.49823/2019 deserves to be disposed off by restoring the allotment of special plot No.19 to Mr. K.V.Ramesh. While doing so, KSSIDC shall deduct the shortfall area of 62.91 sq.mtrs. in special plot No.15 from out of the area in special plot No.19 and calculate the value of remaining portion of special plot No.19 during 2015 and collect - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER it from Mr. K.V.Ramesh alongwith interest at 10% p.a. from the date of cancellation i.e. 01.03.2016 till the date of payment. 15. As regards, special plot No.27, it totally measures 260 sq.mtrs and was allotted to Smt. R.Jyothi on 09.04.2010 and even when the said allotment was in force, KSSIDC and Smt. K.V.Rathnamma had conspired to bring about an allotment of 106 sq.mtrs in special plot No.27 to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma which could not have been done. The allotment of this plot to Smt. R. Jyothi was later cancelled without any basis. However, it is necessary to note that Smt. R. Jyothi did not possess any plots in the vicinity. Hence, allotting this plot to her as marginal land was not lawful and was without following any due process to maintain transparency. This therefore shows that the allotment to Smt.R. Jyothi was for some extraneous consideration. Be that as it may, the allotment of plot to Smt. R.Jyothi was cancelled on 19.03.2012 on the ground that she failed to pay the allotment price within time. It appears that even in respect of Smt. R.Jyothi, the allotment price was not the actual price that was to be paid but was at reduced rates. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 16. It is relevant to note that KSSIDC has framed guidelines for allotment of industrial land on lease basis. Chapter 6 of the guidelines reads as follows: 6.1 Definition of "Strip of Land" (i) A "strip of land" shall mean a piece of land adjoining one or more existing plots which can not be put to independent use either because it cannot be planned as an independent plot in conformity with the town planning norms or because there can be no approach to such piece of land, or marginal land or valley land or undeveloped land or undeveloped land or measurement difference or boundary corrections or due to any other reasons. (ii) Any land in possession of an allottee which is in excess of the land actually allotted by the Corporation shall also be deemed to be a strip of land. 6.2 Conditions and modes of disposal of 'strips of land': 6.2.1 All allotments of strip of land shall be made only for the purpose for which the original plot of the allottee was allotted or has been allowed to be used. 6.2.2 RATE OF ALLOTTMENT / REGULARISATION. Where any strip of land is so located that it can be used by the lessee of only one adjoining plot, such strip of land shall be disposed of by allotment to such - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER lessee of the adjoining plot. In such cases the allotment of the strip of land shall be made at the following rates: For industrial or Service purpose Twice the prevailing development charges. For Business / commercial purpose Four times the prevailing development charges. 6.2.3 Where any strip of land is so located that it can be used by the lessee of more than one adjoining plots, such strip of land shall be disposed of by a limited auction between the owners of all the adjoining plots. On auction, the strip of land shall not be disposed of at a rate less than the rates mentioned in para No.6.2.2 above. However, if in any such auction the owner of only one adjoining plot shows interest in the land, the strip of land shall be allotted to him at the rates mentioned in para No.6.2.2 above. 6.2.4 Before disposing of any strip of land, the building line shall be marked which shall be maintained. 17. The purpose of formation of an industrial area is to encourage industries and other ancillary businesses. The largesse of the State cannot be concentrated in a few hands and no person can attempt to usurp to assert monopoly. Every - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER individual aspiring to do business should be provided with an opportunity and land being a major component cannot be allowed to be held by a few. Now that Mr. K.V.Ramesh has claimed that without any authorization he has laid the water and sewage pipes beneath special plot No.27 to discharge effluents into a septic tank and now that Smt. K.V.Rathnamma claims that a portion of special plot No.27 was allotted to her, it was appropriate for KSSIDC to have put up special plot No.27 for sale by public auction, as an area measuring 2700 sq.ft., in special plot No.27 is ideal for any commercial/business/ industrial activity. Similarly, special plot No.21 which was earlier allotted to Mr. K.V.Ramesh and which was cancelled also is liable to be put up for public auction since it measures 105 sq.mtrs. and is ideal for commercial/business/industrial activity and this would meet the interest of all the parties concerned. 18. This would also secure the interest of KSSIDC as doing so would get a better price for valuable industrial land. 19. In that view of the matter these petitions are disposed off in the following manner: - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER ORDER (i) W.P.No.9162/2010 is dismissed in view of the benefit given while considering W.P.No.49823/2019. (ii) W.P.No.16176/2010 is also dismissed. (iii) In view of the foregoing, W.P.No.13629/2012 does not survive for consideration and the same is also dismissed. (iv) W.P.No.49823/2019 is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.03.2016 canceling allotment of special plot No.19 to the petitioner - Mr. K.V.Ramesh is set aside. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.9,99,894/- minus the value of 62.91 sq.mtrs. of special plot No.15 at allotment rates in the year 2010 and interest @ 10% p.a., from 01.03.2016 till the date of payment. The KSSIDC shall intimate the petitioner about the demand that the petitioner is liable to pay. The petitioner shall pay the said amount within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of demand. (v) KSSIDC is directed to put up special plot No.27 and 21 for sale by public auction and convey it to the highest bidder in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that KSSIDC shall take - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER steps to recover 106 sq.mtrs of special plot No.27 that was allotted to Smt. K.V.Rathnamma (respondent No.6) in W.P.No.13629/2012. It is open for the petitioners to participate in the public auction that may be conducted by KSSIDC. (vi) The auction shall be conducted within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) In view of the undertaking given by Mr. K.V.Ramesh in W.P.No.9162/2010 his possession if any in special plot No.21 and the sewage/water lines beneath special plot No.27 laid shall not be disturbed till the conclusion of the public auction. If Mr. K.V.Ramesh does not succeed in the public auction, then either KSSIDC or the successful bidder shall take necessary steps including use of required force to free the industrial plots. This is however subject to the condition that Mr. K.V.Ramesh shall not oppose the auction in any manner whatsoever or object the general public from entering the properties for inspection / verification. (viii) KSSIDC or any person interested to purchase the property at the public auction are free to - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32857 WP No. 9162 of 2010 C/W WP No. 16176 of 2010 WP No. 13629 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER inspect the property put up for auction and in the event the petitioner (Mr.K.V.Ramesh) in W.P.No.9162/2010, W.P. No.16176/2010 and W.P. No.13629/2012 does not succeed in the public auction, the KSSIDC is at liberty to take whatever reasonable measures including use of force to recover possession of special plot Nos.21 and 27 and hand over possession to the successful bidder. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20