IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.503 OF 2023 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: M/S. P.M. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. M. BABANNA No.129, 7TH MAIN V BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2 . THE COMMISSIONER FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2 3 . KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3RD FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING) No.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER No.5, FOURTH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT. RUPA V. RON, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI. AJAY J.N, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A.No.2/2024) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2023 IN W.P.No.11510/2020 (GM-KIADB), PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL 3 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11510/2020 (GM-KIADB). 2. We have heard Shri Rajeswara P.N, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, Smt. Rupa V. Ron, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Shri. B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.4. Shri. Ajay J.N, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant in I.A.No.2/2024. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant applied for project clearance on 17.04.2010. As the project cost exceeded Rs.100 Crores, it was considered by the State High Level Clearance Committee ('SHLCC' for short). In the meeting dated 24.05.2010, the SHLCC cleared the appellant's project and 4 directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short) to acquire and allot 163 acres of land as a Single Unit Complex ('SUC' for short). The Government issued an order dated 02.06.2010 directing KIADB to acquire and allot SUC 163 acres of land in Sy.No.125 of Chikkahullur Village. In the 23rd SHLCC held on 19.06.2010, the survey number was corrected and a corrigendum dated 16.07.2010 rectified the land description as Sy.No.25 of Chikkahullur Village, a Government land, to be allotted to the appellant as SUC. By Government order dated 26.03.2015, 167 acres of land in Sy.No.25 of Chikkahullur Village were transferred to KIADB for allotment to the appellant as SUC, subject to KIADB remitting payment of land value at prevailing market guidelines. By letter dated 16.04.2015, the Deputy Commissioner directed KIADB to remit Rs.65 lakhs per acre for 109 acres and Rs.45 lakhs per acre for 58 acres. The transfer was completed on 08.05.2015 as evidenced by the Tahasildar's letter. Though the project was cleared on 24.05.2010, land came into the possession of the KIADB only on 08.05.2015. KIADB's allotment file recorded that no 5 demand had been raised earlier as the land had not been transferred by the Government to the KIADB. Despite this, KIADB neither issued a demand notice nor allotted the land, instead raising a technical objection that the project clearance under Government Order dated 02.06.2010 was valid only for a period of two years and that the appellant was required to seek extension. In reply, the appellant sought extension and possession by letter dated 01.10.2015, which was not considered and therefore filed Writ Petition No.47952/2015 on 04.11.2015 seeking allotment of 163 acres, extension of time and to restrain against third party allotment. The KIADB filed its statement of objections contending that the project was not SUC and hence the appellant was not entitled to SUC rates. By an interim order dated 06.11.2015, this Court restrained consideration of third party applications for allotment, which interim protection continued until disposal of the writ petition. In view of KIADB's contrary stand and to avoid further delay, the appellant agreed, without prejudice to seek allotment of 50 acres, while reserving its right to the entire 163 acres. On 06.06.2019, the appellant was assured 6 that 50 acres of land would be allotted immediately upon request and accordingly the appellant submitted a letter seeking allotment of 50 acres of land without prejudice. On 15.06.2019, the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee ('SLSWCC' for short) accepted the request of the appellant, directed the KIADB to allot 50 acres, granted a two year extension for implementation of the project and retained all other terms and conditions. The Government order dated 08.07.2019 reiterated that all terms of the Government order dated 02.06.2010 would continue. However, in its 362nd meeting, KIADB unilaterally treated the project as a bulk allotment and fixed the price at Rs.152.25 Lakhs per acre, despite a sub-committee recommendation dated 10.07.2019 fixing Rs.111 Lakhs per acre and issued no demand notice. The appellant submitted representations dated 19.07.2019, 31.08.2019 and 14.10.2019 invoking Section 8 of the Facilitation Act and seeking SUC based allotments. As no action followed, the appellant filed an application seeking allotment of 50 acres as SUC. During the pendency of the application, in the 365th meeting, KIADB encahnced the price 7 to Rs.2 Crores per acre. Suppressing this resolution, KIADB filed objections on 04.08.2020 stating the tentative cost as Rs.142.25 Lakhs per acre. Thereafter, on 18.09.2020, nearly 15 months after the SLSWCC clearance, KIADB issued a demand letter requiring payment of pay Rs.2 Crores per acre within 30 days. This escalating increased the project land cost from Rs.215.83 Crores to nearly Rs.500 Crores, which defeats the object of the Facilitation Act. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.11510/2020 on 13.10.2020 challenging the demand notice dated 18.09.2020 and the resolution dated 19.06.2020, seeking allotment as SUC at the cost paid by KIADB to the Government with service charges. The Karnataka Udyoga Mitra contended that the project was not cleared as SUC by SLSWCC. Consequently, the appellant withdrew its letter dated 06.06.2019 by communication dated 09.01.2021, detailing denial of SUC benefits for over five years and even allotment of 50 acres. On 28.01.2021, the appellant filed I.A.No.1/2021 seeking amendment of the writ petition to claim allotment of 163 acres of land instead of 50 acres, while stating 8 willingness to accept 50 acres as SUC. On 25.02.2021, learned counsel for KIADB assured allotment on SUC basis as per extant norms, but KIADB thereafter insisted the appellant to pay Rs.2 Crores per acre. I.A.No.1/2021 was allowed on 26.07.2021. In the amended writ petition, the appellant sought allotment of 163 acres of land at the price paid pursuant to the Deputy Commissioner's letter dated 16.04.2015. In an additional Statement of Objections filed on 08.12.2022, KIADB admitted that the original allotment approved by SLSWCC was on SUC basis, but contended that the present allotment was not SUC basis and formed part an industrial layout, contrary to its earlier stand and further contended that 331 acres and 20 guntas of land had been transferred under Government Order dated 26.03.2015, of which 163 acres pertained to the appellant, justifying fixation of price by the Board. 4. The learned Single Judge observed that it was an admitted position that, whether in respect of allotment of 163 acres or the reduced extent of 50 acres, the petitioner had not paid a single rupee to the KIADB for over 13 years, 9 either pursuant to the Government Order or the demand letter. It was noted that 2010 onwards, the petitioner consistently insisted that the land to be allotted at a particular price and on account of such insistence, the allotment did not materialise. It was further observed that in the year 2015, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction for allotment of land and the allotment process could not proceed due to the operation of an interim order. Thereafter, the petitioner altered its stand by withdrawing the request for allotment of 163 acres and seeking allotment of 50 acres and subsequently withdrew the request for cancellation of the original claim of 163 acres. Throughout these proceedings and changes in position, the petitioner had not made any payment whatsoever to the KIADB. On these grounds, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed the same. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true nature of the writ petition, which was for allotment of land as a SUC, under which the allottee is required to pay only the actual cost of Government land plus Board Service 10 Charges. Consequently, the demand of Rs.2 Crores per acre, treating the project as a bulk allotment is illegal. The possession of the Government land was handed over to KIADB as early as 05.05.2015, and therefore, immediately after 08.05.2015, KIADB was required to issue an allotment letter and demand notice calling upon the appellant to pay the actual land cost and Board Service Charges. The deliberate failure of KIADB to issue such demand notice is wholly unjustified and cannot be attributed to the appellant. It is further contended that, the learned Single Judge, while noticing that the appellant had agreed without prejudice to accept allotment of 50 acres, erroneously denied relief on the ground that the appellant was “blowing hot and cold”, without considering the appellant’s letter dated 09.01.2021, the proceedings dated 25.02.2021, or the circumstances necessitating the amendment application to restore the claim for 163 acres. 6. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that “without prejudice” request was made when the appellant was being denied its lawful entitlement. Even after the SLSWCC clearance dated 11 15.06.2019 for allotment of 50 acres, no demand notice was issued for over 15 months, which delay is arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned Single Judge failed to notice the inconsistent stand of KIADB. The fault, therefore, lay entirely with the respondents and not with the appellant. It is further contended that no provision of the KIADB Rules or Regulations supporting the reasoning of the learned Single Judge was adverted to, nor was the KIADB’s SUC policy considered. 7. It is further contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant had not paid a single rupee ignored the fact that no lawful demand was raised until 18.09.2020, that assurances regarding SUC allotment were recorded by the Court on 25.02.2021 and that the appellant consistently expressed readiness and willingness to pay SUC rates of Rs.58.05 lakhs per acre, later Rs.65.20 lakhs per acre inclusive of 12% Board service charges, as reflected in Court proceedings and the rejoinder dated 27.01.2023. The learned Single Judge also failed to examine the plea of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, despite the specific pleading that 12 similarly situated third party cases were SUC allotments, while, the appellant alone was treated as a bulk allotment and despite the Board's failure to justify the demand of Rs.2 Crores per acre for a project admittedly cleared as an SUC, where no infrastructure facilities were provided by KIADB and the entire burden is on the allottee. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions:- • Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. Cornerstone Property Developers Private Limited and Others, by Order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).461/2024; • Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. Cornerstone Property Developers Private Limited and Others, by Order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.1483 of 2023 (LA- KIADB); • Cornerstone Property Developers Private Limited v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and Others, by Order dated 11.10.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.8362 of 2022 (LA-KIADB); • The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. M/s. Lightsquare Designs Pvt. Ltd., and Another, by Order dated 08.10.2025 passed 13 in Writ Appeal No.530/2025 (GM-KIADB) a/w connected matters; • Superintendent (Tech.1) Central Excise, I.D.D. Jabalpur and Others v. Pratap Rai, reported in (1978) 3 SCC 113; 9. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 contended that the approval granted by the Committees constituted under the Facilitation Act is only an in-principle approval of the project and does not, by itself, result in an automatic or binding allotment of land in favour of the applicant. The actual allotment of land must be made only by KIADB in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, Rules and Regulations and that the Board is not divested of its statutory discretion merely because a project is cleared by the Facilitation Committee. It is further contended that the recommendations of the Facilitation Committee are not binding in nature and cannot be construed as compelling the Board to allot land at the same price or on the same terms without reference to other statutory provisions. Even if multiple applications are approved by the Facilitation 14 Committee, the availability of land is limited and the burden of allocation necessarily lies with the Board. Therefore, clearance of a project by the Committee cannot ipso facto result in an allotment in favour of an applicant. 10. It is further contended that the demand of Rs. 2 Crores per acre made by the KIADB was legally valid and in accordance with prevailing rates. The appellant had initially sought allotment for 163 acres of land and subsequently withdrew the said request and sought allotment of 50 acres and thereafter reverted to seeking 163 acres claiming that all such communications were issued "without prejudice". Such a conduct amounts to approbating and reprobating which is impermissible in law. It is further contended that the expression "without prejudice" cannot be stretched to an indefinite extent so as to defeat the statutory scheme of the Facilitation Act or to bind the Board contrary to law. 11. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contended that although the appellant's project was approved, it was not implemented within the stipulated period of two years. The learned Single Judge noted that the 15 appellant sought allotment of only 50 acres of land, which KIADB was willing to allot but at the prevailing price, but the appellant was unwilling to pay the revised price and insisted on rates which prevailing nearly 10 years earlier. The learned Single Judge held that an allottee is required to pay the prevailing price at the time of allotment and further observed that the appellant continued to retain the benefit of the land from the year 2015 onwards by virtue of an interim order and had not paid a single rupee towards the land cost for nearly 13 years. It is further contended that the delay and the resultant situation were entirely attributable to the appellant's conduct, that the appellant's sole grievance related to fixation of price which it was unwilling to pay, while simultaneously seeking allotment of land at outdated rates and that upon appreciation of these facts, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the appellant could not approbate and reprobate at the same time. 12. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 contended that the appellant despite being fully aware of the approval conditions, failed to approach KIADB for land 16 acquisition during the two year validity period of the project approval. During this period, the appellant neither deposited the requisite amount nor complied with mandatory prerequisites. Mere submission of an application for allotment, without undertaking the acquisition process, does not amount to compliance and consequently no accrued right arose in favour of the appellant. It is also contended that the clearance granted by SHLCC did not automatically entitle the appellant to allotment of land as it is conditional in nature and amounted only to a recommendation for acquisition of land for SUC purposes. An application for allotment could be considered only after the land was duly acquired and made ready for allotment. The contention that the land had been earmarked exclusively for the appellant's project is denied and since the clearance lapsed by efflux of time, no right could be claimed under the expired approval. 13. It is further contended that the appellant's present allotment of 50 acres to the appellant is not on SUC basis, and the allotments made to third parties were all on SUC basis and since the appellant is not similarly situated, no parity can be claimed. It is further contended that 17 excluding the 163 acres initially proposed for the appellant, the remaining land was developed as an industrial estate. The 50 acres approved by the SLSWCC for allotment to the appellant form part of this industrial layout and the cost was accordingly calculated and levied. The allotment approved by the SLSWCC is not on an SUC basis but as part of an industrial layout. It is further submitted that upon considering rival contentions, the appellant restricted claim to 50 acres and the remaining 113 acres earmarked for the project of the appellant have since been allotted to other projects, resulting in the entire extent of 163 acres being integrated into the industrial area and all allotments including that of the appellant being on an industrial layout basis and not on a SUC basis. 14. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is noticed that SHLCC had initially granted clearance for the appellant's project in its meeting held on 24.05.2010. The Committee approved the request of the appellant and recommended to the KIABD to allot the land to an extent of 163 acres. The Government by its Order dated 02.06.2010 also accorded in-principle approval to the 18 project. The said order specifically provided that the infrastructure facilities would include 163 acres of land which the KIADB would acquire and allot as SUC to the appellant. The specific and general terms were also clearly provided in the order, including the facilities of water, power, incentives and concessions. Thereafter, corrections were carried out and steps were taken to procure the land from the Government. On the land being made available, in the year 2015, the KIADB did not take any steps to allot the land to the appellant. However, an objection was raised that the clearance granted by Government Order dated 02.06.2010 was only for a period of two years. Subsequently, on a request by the appellant, the Government Order dated 08.07.2019, recommended to the KIADB to allot 50 acres of land to the appellant and also granted extension of time by two years to implement the project with a condition that further request for extension of time will not be considered. It was also specifically provided in the Government Order dated 08.07.2019 which is produced as Annexure - AX, that all other terms and conditions indicated in the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 would remain unaltered. The 19 appellant's contention is that the condition of the land being allotted to the appellant on an SUC basis, being one of the conditions of the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 and the Government Order dated 08.07.2019, having clearly provided that the conditions of the earlier order would prevail, the allotment of land on SUC basis should also prevail as far as the allotment of the 50 acres of land to the appellant is concerned. 15. Though several arguments have been raised by the respondents with regard to the fact that no amount had been paid by the appellant pursuant to the allotment of the land, it is pertinent to note that there is no pleading that any demand had been made by the KIADB for the payment of the amount towards the price of the land on SUC basis as ordered by the Government. The appellant specifically contends that it is only on a quantification and demand being made that the appellant could have made the payments and such quantification and demand was never made by the KIADB. 20 16. Further, though the parties have placed on record their contention with regard to the binding nature of the recommendations of the SLWCC, we notice that the said question does not arise for consideration in this appeal. We are of the opinion that in the light of the facts as noticed by the learned Single Judge, the contention of the appellant that the entire 163 acres of land has now to be allotted to the appellant on SUC basis cannot be accepted. The appellant itself had sought and obtained the allotment of a lesser extent of 50 acres of land which had been approved by the Government by its Order dated 08.07.2019. At this distance of time, we are clear that the appellant cannot be permitted to contend that the said request was without prejudice to their rights and that the claim for allotment of the entire 163 acres of land is to be considered by the Government afresh. This is also in view of the fact that no payments had been made by the appellant towards the price of the land. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised vehement contentions that it is only on a demand being made by the KIADB that amount could have been deposited by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the 21 appellant cannot be permitted to seek the allotment of the entire extent of land which has thereafter been allotted to other persons by the KIADB on the ground that the reduction of its request to 50 acres was without prejudice to their claim for 163 acres. 17. Though the KIADB has raised contentions that the value of the land has to be calculated taking note of all the infrastructural developments which have been carried out by the KIADB, we notice that the Order of the Government dated 02.06.2010 had specifically directed the handing over of the land on SUC basis. If that be so, the amount that is to be paid would only be the price of the land that has been handed over by the Government with *12% addition as service charge. It is contended that an amount of *Rs.32 crores has already been deposited by the appellants before *the KIADB and that the appellant is willing to pay the price of the land with service charge as required by law. The Government by its Order dated 08.07.2019 has acquiesced to the request of the appellant and has granted 50 acres of land on the same terms as provided in the order dated 02.06.2010. In the above factual situation, we are of * Corrected vide Court Order dated 13.03.2026 22 the opinion that the KIADB cannot now contend that the 50 acres of land which has been granted to the appellant cannot be granted on an SUC basis. Since the Government Order dated 08.07.2019 specifically states that all the conditions provided in the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 would apply to grant of the lesser extent of 50 acres as well. We are clear that the said extent of 50 acres of land has also to be granted to the appellant on SUC basis itself. 18. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeal is to succeed in part. Accordingly:- (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11510/2020, is set aside. (iii) There will be a direction to the KIADB to allot 50 acres of land to the appellant on the basis of the Government Order dated 08.07.2019 on SUC basis as provided in the Government Order dated 02.06.2010. (iv) The KIADB shall calculate the amount payable by the appellant for 50 acres of 23 land on SUC basis taking note of the price of the land and the service charges and shall make a demand to that effect within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (v) The amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be adjusted against the demand so made. In case, any further amount is to be paid by the appellant, the same shall be paid within a period of two weeks thereafter, failing which, the appellant shall loose the benefit of these directions. (vi) In case, such demand is met in full by the appellant, the land shall be allotted and the conditions as provided in the Government Orders dated 08.07.2019 and 02.06.2010 will be complied with by the appellant. Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*