- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3034 OF 2026 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. M/S RADHA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES, NO. 142, 4TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 PRESENTLY OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 904, RENAISSANCE RESERVA, MUNCIPAL NO. 54, MES ROAD, MUTHYALNAGAR, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 054 REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETRIX, SOLE PROPRIERTORSHIP CONCERNED, SMT. G NIVEDA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDAN GOWDA PATIL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 HAVING ITS OFFICER AT NO. 2,2/1 AND 2/3, ACHARYA TULASI MARG, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 009 (REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER) 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 2,2/1 And 2/3, ACHARYA TULASI MARG, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1; *SRI. SHARANADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION LETTER BEARING NO. KIADB/HO/ALLOT/23674/19816/2024-25 ANNEXURE. 30.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM * Inserted vide Chamber Order dated 01.04.2026 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or quashing the impugned intimation letter bearing no.KIADB/HO/Allot/23674/19816/2024-25 dated 30.01.2025, issued by the Respondent No.3, enclosed at Annexure-A. ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 to receive the balance amount in tune of Rs.58,45,000/- towards land cost and handover the possession in terms of allotment letter dated 01.01.2022, issued by the Respondent No.3, enclosed at Annexure-C1." 2. The petitioner submitted a project proposal on 22.10.2021 seeking approval for establishment of a CNC Machining and Fabrication Unit at Avverahalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The said project was placed before the District Level Single Window Clearance Committee (DLSWCC) (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”), which approved the proposal. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for allotment of industrial land with the respondents on 21.12.2021 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 remitted a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- on 28.12.2021 towards the land cost, inclusive of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). In furtherance of the said application, the respondents issued an allotment letter allotting Plot No.172-D2 situated in Avverahalli Industrial Area, measuring 0.50 acre, in favour of the petitioner. 3. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued an intimation letter dated 30.01.2025 informing the petitioner that the initial allotment made in her favour stood cancelled. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has presented the present writ petition calling in question the legality and validity of the said intimation letter cancelling the allotment. 4. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the impugned cancellation has been effected without issuing any prior notice and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to remit the balance amount of Rs.58,45,000/- towards the land cost. It is contended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 that such cancellation, without adhering to the principles of natural justice, is arbitrary and unsustainable. The petitioner further submits that she is ready and willing to deposit the balance amount of Rs.58,45,000/-. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, would contend that the industrial plot was allotted to the petitioner on 01.01.2022 and that the petitioner committed a clear breach by failing to remit the balance amount of Rs.58,45,000/-. It is therefore contended that respondent No.3 was well within its jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and communicate the same to the petitioner. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in M/s. Kamalalayaa Read Estates LLP vs. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and Another in W.P. No.279/2024. Referring to the said judgment, it is argued that where possession of the allotted land has not been delivered, the authorities - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 are not obligated to issue a prior notice or afford an opportunity of hearing before cancelling the allotment. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the petitioner has made out a case for setting aside the impugned intimation letter dated 30.01.2025 issued by respondent No.3, as produced at Annexure–A? (ii) Whether the petitioner has established a legal right to seek a direction against respondents No.2 and 3 to permit deposit of the balance amount of Rs.58,45,000/- towards the land cost and to claim possession of the industrial plot in terms of the allotment letter dated 01.01.2022? Findings on points No.(i) and (ii): 7. Admittedly, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was made under the allotment letter dated 01.01.2022. Under the terms and conditions of the said allotment letter, the petitioner was required to remit the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 balance land cost within a stipulated period of 180 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. The records would indicate that after the initial deposit of Rs.7,50,000/-, the petitioner is stated to have remitted a further sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. Even if the said payment is taken into consideration, the petitioner has admittedly failed to remit the substantial balance amount, which according to the petitioner herself is Rs.58,45,000/-. The contractual condition contained in the allotment letter clearly mandated that the entire balance amount was to be deposited within 180 days, i.e., on or before 01.07.2022. The petitioner has admittedly failed to comply with this fundamental condition governing the allotment. 8. The petitioner, having consciously applied for allotment of an industrial site and having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter dated 01.01.2022, was under a clear contractual and statutory obligation to remit the balance land cost within the prescribed period. The allotment process contemplated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 under the scheme of allotment by the respondents is time- bound in nature, and the payment of the balance land cost within the stipulated period forms the very foundation for execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement and delivery of possession. Failure to comply with this essential condition results in the allotment becoming liable for cancellation. 9. In the present case, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court on the premise that the impugned intimation cancelling the allotment was issued on 30.01.2025 and that she is presently willing to deposit the balance amount. This writ petition is instituted only on 30.01.2026, nearly four years after the issuance of the allotment letter and long after the expiry of the stipulated period of 180 days. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the cancellation intimation has been issued at a later point of time, the original timeline stipulated in the allotment letter does not stand revived. The petitioner cannot seek to circumvent the clear terms of the allotment by approaching this Court belatedly and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 expressing a willingness to deposit the balance amount after an inordinate lapse of time. 10. More importantly, this Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a manner that virtually rewrites the terms of the allotment. The allotment letter clearly stipulates a strict timeline of 180 days for payment of the balance consideration and completion of the allotment process. Permitting the petitioner to deposit the balance amount nearly four years after the allotment would amount to granting an unwarranted indulgence and conferring an undue advantage upon the petitioner. 11. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that industrial sites allotted by the respondent-Board form part of a regulated allotment mechanism intended to promote industrial development. The allotment of such industrial land is governed by specific conditions and timelines so as to ensure that industrial plots are promptly utilized for the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 purpose for which they are allotted. If allottees are permitted to indefinitely defer payment of the balance land cost and thereafter seek revival of allotment merely by expressing willingness to deposit the amount at a later point of time, the entire scheme of allotment would stand frustrated. 12. Furthermore, the industrial site in question was allotted in the year 2022. It is a matter of common knowledge that the value of industrial land is subject to periodic escalation. The price of industrial plots in developed industrial areas is liable to increase substantially over time. If this Court were to permit the petitioner to revive the allotment in the year 2026 by depositing the balance amount fixed in the year 2022, it would result in serious prejudice to the public authority and would defeat the larger public interest. Such an exercise would virtually enable the petitioner to retain the benefit of a 2022 allotment price despite having failed to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 comply with the conditions governing the allotment within the stipulated period. 13. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to create such inequitable consequences. The mere expression of willingness by the petitioner to deposit the balance amount at this belated stage cannot, by itself, confer any enforceable right to seek revival of the allotment. 14. Be that as it may, a perusal of Annexure–C would also indicate that the allotment scheme provided the petitioner a window period of three years to establish the proposed industrial unit after completion of the allotment formalities. However, the petitioner failed even at the threshold stage to secure the execution of the lease-cum- sale agreement by remitting the balance land cost within the stipulated period. The petitioner’s failure to comply with the essential condition of payment of the balance - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 consideration constitutes a fundamental breach of the allotment terms. 15. In such circumstances, this Court, while exercising the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, finds no justification to interfere with the action taken by respondent No.3 in cancelling the allotment. The cancellation is a direct consequence of the petitioner’s own default and cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, Point Nos(i) and (ii) are answered in the Negative and against the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned intimation letter issued by respondent No.3 cancelling the allotment. For the foregoing reasons this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14984 WP No. 3034 of 2026 ORDER i. The writ petition stands dismissed. ii. However, respondent No.3 shall refund the amount deposited by the petitioner, after deducting 20% of the said amount, in terms of Clause 4(a) of the allotment letter. iii. The said exercise shall be carried out expeditiously in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42