- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15646 OF 2022 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: M/s.YASHASHVI ENGINEERING WORKS REP BY PROPRIETOR VIJAYAKUMAR L., NO.4/98, 4TH CROSS B BLOCK, J P NAGAR JANATHA SITE MYSURU-570 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE OFFICE OF DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER CTI BUILDING SAYYAJI ROAD MYSURU-570 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. YASHWANTH B. KATKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.B. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.SUM.KA.KAI.PRAMAUM/KE KA/HANCHIK/4122/4462/ 22-23 DATED 08.06.2022 PASSED BY THE R-3 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP,, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. 4. ASSISTANT SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD METAGALLI K R S ROAD MYSURU-570 001. 5. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD METAGALLI, K R S ROAD MYSURU-570 001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2022 produced at Annexure-G passed by the respondent No.3 in terms of which allotment of industrial plot as made by the respondent-KIADB in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-A has been cancelled with a further direction to confiscate the same. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject industrial plot was allotted in favour of petitioner on 11.02.2015 and a possession certificate in this regard was issued on 02.12.2015. A deed of lease was registered on 20.01.2016 for a consideration amount of Rs.18,92,620/-. Petitioner had availed loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from Syndicate Bank. In terms of the condition of the lease, petitioner was required to put up industry within three years from the date of registration of the lease and in the event of failure, the lease would be extended by two years subject to imposition of penalty of 2%. Whereas the petitioner commenced the construction as required by availing the financial facility from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 the bank. However, he could not complete the construction within the time stipulated for the reasons beyond his control, resulting in respondent authorities issuing a notice dated 06.06.2022 calling upon the petitioner to comply with the requirement of the condition within seven days. He submits even before the expiry of the said period of seven days respondent authorities have issued the impugned order dated 08.06.2022, cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the same. He submits that the order impugned is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In that the petitioner has not even been given the time specified in the notice and therefore seeks for quashing of the impugned order. 3. In response learned counsel for respondent-KIADB submits that the petitioner is required to put up the construction on the plot within the time stipulated thereunder. Non compliance of the same had resulted in issuance of the show cause notice dated 06.06.2022 and since admittedly he had not put up any construction, the respondent authority proceeded to pass the impugned order inasmuch as the petitioner could not have even implemented the project within - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 seven days, though he was called upon to furnish the reasons for non-completion. Therefore, he submits that the order cannot be arbitrary. 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was allotted subject industrial plot by the respondent-KIADB with certain terms and conditions requiring him to put up the construction as provided thereunder. There is also no dispute to the fact that petitioner has not fully complied with the terms of the allotment. By the time the notice dated 06.06.2022 at Annexure-F issued by respondent-KIADB calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of notice regarding non-compliance of the terms of the allotment was even declined to the petitioner. Impugned order at Annexure-G had been issued on 08.06.2022 i.e., just within two days from the date of the show cause notice. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the notice at Annexure-F was received by the petitioner subsequent to the impugned order. Clearly respondent-KIADB has passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 the impugned order without even affording any opportunity let alone the reasonable opportunity to petitioner to represent its case. That too in the light of notice dated 06.06.2022 issued by the respondent-KIADB calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days. Clearly there being violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Section 34B of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act requires respondent-KIADB to issue clear thirty days notice to the allottee before initiating any action which reads as under: "34B.Resumption of the possession of premises including the residential tenements on breach of terms and conditions of lease or holding without authority.- (1) Where the Board is of the opinion that an allottee of any premises or part thereof or residential tenement in an industrial area or industrial estate has violated any of the terms or conditions of allotment or holds it without any authority it may, without prejudice to section 25 give notice to such allottee and Banks or Financial Institutions, in whose favour the Board has permitted the mortgage or leasehold rights of the premises, or residential tenement specifying the breaches of the terms and conditions of the allotment calling upon the allottee to remedy such breaches within a time stipulated in the notice. (2) If the allottee fails to remedy the breaches within the time so stipulated, the Board shall serve a notice upon the allottee under intimation to such Bank or Financial Institutions to show cause within thirty days from the date of service of notice, why the possession of the premises or part thereof or residential tenement should not be resumed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 (3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the allottee and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, the Board may pass such orders, as it deems fit. (4) Where the Board passes an order under sub-section (3), for resuming possession of the premises or part thereof or residential tenement in the industrial area it may, by notice in writing, order any allottee to surrender and deliver possession thereof to the Board or any person duly authorised in this behalf within the date specified in the notice. (5) If any allottee refuses to surrender or deliver the possession of the premises or part thereof or residential tenement within the time specified in the notice, the Board or any officer authorised by it in this behalf may resume the possession of the premises or part thereof or residential tenement free from all encumbrances and for that purpose may use force as may be necessary".]" 8. The impugned order also runs contrary to the said provision. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER 1. Petition is allowed. 2. Impugned order dated 08.06.2022 at Annexure-G is quashed. 3. Petitioner is at liberty to submit its reply to notice dated 06.06.2022 at Annexure-F within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. Respondent-KIADB shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:261 WP No. 15646 of 2022 5. All contentions are kept open. Needless to state before passing any order, respondent authority shall inspect the subject plot and verify, assess if the petitioner has put up the construction as required under the terms of grant/allotment. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30