Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s First Face Information Technologies Private Limited, was allotted a plot of land by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) for establishing an industry. The petitioner failed to comply with the allotment conditions, including setting up the industry within the stipulated time. Despite seeking extensions, no substantial progress was made. Consequently, the KIADB passed orders on 02.12.2016 and 19.12.2016 directing the petitioner to surrender possession and threatening forcible resumption. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash these orders. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 38 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, which had not been availed. The court also observed that the petitioner had not made out any exceptional circumstances warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory remedy.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Availability of statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - The petitioner challenged resumption orders without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal before the State Government under Section 38 of the KIAD Act - Held that the writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative efficacious remedy is available (Paras 1-5). B) Industrial Law - Allotment of Land - Resumption for Non-Compliance - Sections 28, 29, 38 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - The petitioner failed to establish the industry within the stipulated period and sought repeated extensions without substantial progress - The Board's orders for resumption were based on breach of allotment conditions - Held that the Board was justified in resuming the land (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) directing the petitioner to surrender possession of the allotted land and resuming the land are valid and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 38 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966.
Law Points
- Writ of certiorari
- Resumption of land
- Allotment conditions
- Non-compliance
- Alternative remedy
- Industrial area development
