SUBHASH S/O VISHWANATH JANTE vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 201061 OF 2022 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI.SUBHASH
S/O VISHWANATH JANTE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SAI KRUPA VRUKSHA NILAYA,
SAI NAGAR, NAUBAD HOUSING AREA,
BIDAR-585 401
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHAN SOUDA
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
AND CHIEF ENGINEER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ND
14/3, 2 FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
Digitally signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
K.I.A.D.B OFFICE, PLOT NO.16-A
KOLHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA
BIDAR-585403
4. GUNWANTHRAO
S/O MARUTHIRAO SINDHE
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: PVT. SERVICE
R/O PLOT NO.7-P/17
NAUBAD HOUSING AREA
BIDAR-585403
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI A.M.NAGRAL, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M, ADV. FOR R4 (ABSENT)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A; 1) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY TO
QUASH THE ALLOTMENT AND REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED
DATED 04/08.04.2019 IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.7-P17P2 IN
TH
FAVOUR OF THE 4 RESPONDENT AS AT ANNEXURE-G AS
CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 04.01.2019
IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY; 2) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO EXECUTE THE
SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AREA ABUTTING THE
PLOT OF THE PETITIONER MEASURING 20 X 40 FT BY
CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
AS AT ANNEXURE-E & F WITHIN SUCH STIPULATED TIME AS
THIS COURT DEEMS FIT; 3) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER/S OR
DIRECTION/S WHICH THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking following prayers:
“01) Issue a writ of certiorari thereby to quash the
allotment and registration of sale deed dated
04/08.04.2019 in respect of plot No.7-P17P2 in
th
favour of the 4 respondent as at Annexure-G as
contrary to the government order dated 04.01.2019
is illegal and arbitrary;
02) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents no.1 to 3 to execute the sale deed in
respect of the excess area abutting the plot of the
petitioner measuring 20 x 40 ft by considering the
representation and correspondence as at Annexure-E
& F within such stipulated time as this Court deems
fit, in the circumstances of the case;
03) Pass any other order/s or direction/s which this
Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of
the case”
2. Sri Ravi B Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been allotted
industrial plot bearing No.7-P18 measuring 40 x 60 feet at
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
Naubad Housing Area, Bidar, by the respondent Nos.2 and
3. It is submitted that the authorities executed necessary
deed of conveyance. It is also submitted that the
petitioner submitted representation to the respondents
seeking for allotment of adjacent small extent of excess
land from the said industrial area, which was considered
by the authority and directed the petitioner to pay
Rs.55,242/- and accordingly, the payment was made and
sought for allotment letter, possession certificate and
execution of sale deed. It is further submitted that the
authorities failed to execute the deed of conveyance.
However, behind the back of the petitioner, they have
executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.4 in
the year 2019, without issuance of notice to the petitioner
and they have not refunded the amount paid by the
petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
on the following decisions:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
(a) Sri Gopalakrishna H vs. Bangalore
1
Development Authority
(b) M/s Sri Balaji Ginning and Pressing
2
Industries Vs The State of Karnataka
(c) Arihanth Industries Vs The Principal
3
Secretary
Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Per contra , Sri A.M.Nagral, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 defends the
action and submits that the authority had conveyed its
intention to allot the excess land in favour of the petitioner
and accordingly, the payment was made. Thereafter, the
authority has taken decision to allot the plot bearing No.7-
P/17-P2 in favour of the respondent No.4 and accordingly,
a sale deed was executed. Now under the writ jurisdiction,
the sale deed cannot be set aside and the authorities are
ready to refund the amount paid by the petitioner, if
1
W.P. NO. 19707/2023 c/w W.P.NO. 21656/2025 dt:11.12.2025
2
W.P.NO.202813/2023 dt: 05.12.2023
3
W.P.NO,.107341/2014 dt:10.06.2024
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
reasonable time is granted. In support of his contentions,
he placed reliance on the following decisions:
(a) Gwalior Development Authority and
4
Another vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh
(b) Sri Althaf Ahamed vs. State of
5
Karnataka & Ors.
(c) M/s Sridevi Hospital & Anr. vs. Assets
Re-construction Company (India) Limited &
6
Ors.
(d) M/s. Omkar Mines Industries vs. State
7
of Karnataka & Ors.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and meticulously perused
the material available on record. There is no
representation for the respondent No.4.
4
2023 SCC OnLine SC 450
5
W.A.No.713/2023 disposed of on 11.03.2024
6
W.A.No.310/2025 disposed of on 18.12.2025
7
W.A.No.200298/2024 disposed of on 24.08.2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
5. The material on record indicates that the
petitioner has been allotted a Plot No.7-P18 measuring 40
x 60 feet situated at the Naubad Housing Area, Bidar. The
respondent No.3 executed registered sale deed in respect
of the aforesaid plot on 13.02.2009.
6. The petitioner has submitted an application
seeking for allotment of open space measuring 20 x 40
feet abutting to his industrial plot as per representation
dated 01.04.2011. The respondent No.3 sent
communication pursuant to the representation of the
petitioner dated 01.04.2011 indicating that the petitioner
has utilized adjacent space measuring 20 x 40 feet and
directed to pay Rs.55,242/- as per the communication
dated 30.08.2011 as per Annexure-E. The petitioner sent
a representation dated 05.09.2011 along with demand
draft and sought to execute deed of conveyance to the
excess land as per Annexure-F.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
7. The perusal of the sketch at Annexure-A1
indicates that the petitioner’s industrial plot is shown as 7-
P18 and towards the southern side of the plot it is shown
as ‘Nala’. Similarly, in the possession certificate dated
11.02.2009 for the plot No.7-P18 the check bandi towards
the southern side it is shown as ‘KIADB Nala’. The same
check bandi is shown in the sale deed dated 13.02.2009
executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said
land. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that as per the records of the respondent –
KIADB, the open space is also a part of plot allotted to the
petitioner and the boundaries will prevail over the extent
mentioned in the sale deed.
8. The respondent No.3 executed registered sale
deed dated 04.04.2019 in favour of the respondent No.4
with respect to the open space sought by the petitioner, as
is evident from Annexure-G. It is not in dispute that
before execution of sale deed in favour of respondent
No.4, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
respondent Nos.2 and 3 have refunded the amount
received from the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the
sale deed of the respondent No.4 is annexed with a sketch
which indicates that plot No.7-P/17-P2 is a number
allotted to the open space in question. It is not in dispute
that the said open space was never carved out as a plot in
the original plan of the respondent – KIADB. The action of
the respondent – KIADB in executing the sale deed in
favour of respondent No.4 with regard to the open space
after making a demand of its value from the petitioner in
the year 2011 is illegal and arbitrary action. It is further
to be noticed that non-communication of its decision with
regard to the allotment or non-allotment of the open space
to the petitioner is a highly arbitrary act of the respondent
– KIADB. Furthermore, retaining the amount deposited by
the petitioner from 05.09.2011 is amounting to unlawful
enrichment by the respondent – KIADB. Having recorded
the finding that the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3
in executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
No.4 is illegal, now the question is whether this Court can
set aside the registered sale deed executed in favour of
respondent No.4 in writ jurisdiction. To consider the said
question, it would be appropriate to refer the decisions
relied by the parties in the proceedings.
9. In the case of Sri Gopal Krishna H. referred
supra at paras-25, 29 and 30, the learned Single Judge
has held as under:
“ 25. Once the BDA executes a conveyance, it becomes
functus officio in respect of that sites. Possession,
enjoyment and mutation records vest with the allottee
and the BDA cannot unilaterally alter the site
boundaries, enlarge or shrink the dimension, merge
marginal lands. To recast the site as a corner site or
dispossess the allottee. Thus, the endorsement
requiring surrender of original documents is wholly
without jurisdiction. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are
purchasers in auction. However, the BDA could not
have auctioned what it has no longer owned. The
auction is built on an illegal foundation. The unilateral
administrative reclassification of the petitioners' land.
Therefore, the auction notification, auction
confirmation, and sale deeds in favour of respondent
Nos.3 and 4 cannot override the petitioners’ prior
registered sale deeds.
29. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the
respondents had gone far beyond their authority by
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
conducting the auction without putting the petitioners
on notice, without declaring the site as a corner site at
an earlier point, and without affording even a minimal
opportunity to the petitioners to contest such
reclassification. Once a registered sale deeds have been
executed by authority years ago, the petitioners stood
vested with indefensible title, therefore any notice of
calling for surrender of that deeds and simultaneously
asserting that the sites are now sold to auction
purchasers ceases to be a preliminary steps and
becomes a substantive encroachment upon the vested
property rights.
30. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be
expected to “keep quiet” or wait for further coercive
steps, when the respondent-authority had already
divested the petitioners of the property in the internal
records and had conveyed the same to third parties.
This Court is, therefore, fully justified in exercising its
writ jurisdiction to interfere with and restrain such
overreach, or for allowing the process to continue
would amount to permitting the authority to perpetuate
an illegality under the pretext of issuing a show cause
notice. Accordingly, the objection that the writ petitions
are premature or directed against a show cause notice
is rejected.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The learned counsel for the respondent –
KIADB has pointed out that the aforesaid decision is
challenged in W.A.No.1542/2026 and the aforesaid
decision is on a different set of facts.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
11. The decision in the case of M/s. Sri Balaji’s
Ginning and Pressing Industries referred supra , the
said decision has been set aside by the Division Bench in
W.A.No.200014/2024 dated 24.07.2026. The decision in
the case of Arihant Industries referred supra has been
assailed in W.A.No.100046/2026. In the said case,
learned Single Judge at paras-16 to 18 has held as under:
“16. The actions of the respondents, particularly the
contradictory statements and the arbitrary cancellation
of the allotment of Plot No.553D to the petitioner, while
simultaneously executing a lease-cum-sale agreement
with Respondent No.5, reflect bias and arbitrariness.
The respondents have not substantiated the alleged
breach of terms by the petitioner, making their actions
legally indefensible. The respondents’ conduct in this
matter violates the rules and regulations related to the
allotment of industrial plots, demonstrating a clear case
of administrative malfeasance.
17. The petitioner’s right to the allotted industrial plot
has been unjustly compromised due to the
respondents’ contradictory actions. The possession
certificate, payment acknowledgments, and initial
allotment letter all point to the petitioner’s rightful
claim to Plot No.553D. The subsequent actions by the
respondents to cancel the allotment and reassign the
plot to Respondent No.5, without proper justification,
constitute a grave miscarriage of justice.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
18. Given the findings, this Court deems it fit to set
aside the order of cancellation of the allotment of Plot
No.553D to the petitioner. Additionally, the lease-cum-
sale agreement and the sale deed executed in favor of
Respondent No.5 concerning Plot No.553D are also
liable to be set aside. The respondents are bound
directed to restore the allotment of Plot No.553D to the
petitioner and ensure that possession is delivered to
the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner is entitled to the
rightful possession and use of the industrial plot as
initially intended.”
12. In the decision relied by the learned counsel for
the respondent in the case of Gwalior Development
Authority & Ors. referred supra , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court at para-18 held that the lease deed executed
between the parties cannot be altered or amended in a
writ jurisdiction.
13. In the case of Sri Althaf Ahamed referred
supra at para- 5.3 it is held as under:
“5.3 This is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sohan
Lal vs. Union of India and Another (AIR 1957 SC
529) observing thus,
“We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the
rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by
the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
would be entering into a field of investigation which is
more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly
constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising
the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of
fact and law which are in dispute requiring
determination before the respective claims of the
parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the
property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will
be necessary to declare that he had title in that
property and was entitled to recover possession of it.
This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his
favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned
hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration
whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of the
Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and
restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.”
(para 5)
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. In M/s. Sridevi Hospital referred supra , the
Court at para-17 held as under:
“17. The learned Single Judge noted that in ordinary
circumstances, the court would not entertain a writ
petition for cancellation of registered documents.
However, in the given facts considering the apparent
fraud perpetuated by appellant No.2 as well as his
children Smt.Devi and Dr.Ashwin, the Court considered
it necessary to entertain the said writ petitions. The
learned Single Judge held that a deed unilaterally
cancelling registered deeds cannot be executed and
registered. The learned Single Judge also held that the
Senior Sub-Registrar could not have impounded any
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
document without giving notice to the concerned party.
In view of the findings as noted above, the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petitions.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. In the case of M/s. Omkar Mines Industries
referred supra at para-8 it is held as under:
“8. Petitioner was allotted plot No.68 situated at
Humnabad Industrial Area measuring 8089 sq.
meters by allotment letter dated 14.09.2009. He was
put in possession of the allotted industrial plot on
27.01.2010. Admittedly, respondent No.6 was
allotted plot No.68/P by allotment letter dated
07.03.2019. Plot No.68/P allotted to respondent No.6
is behind the industrial plot of petitioner. The
petitioner claims that without considering his
application for allotment of land behind his plot,
respondent No.6 was allotted the said plot. The
petitioner has no right or preemptive right to seek
allotment of additional land behind or adjacent to his
plot. No provision for such allotment is also brought
to the notice of this Court. The petitioner placed
reliance on Government order dated 04.01.2019.
However, the said Government order would not come
to the rescue of the petitioner, since it is issued
prescribing method to collect sital value where
additional land which is in use, is allotted in favour of
an allottee. In the instant case, plot No.68/P is
allotted in favour of respondent No.6 and the
petitioner has failed to establish that plot behind his
plot is in his possession.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
16. Keeping in mind the contentions advanced on
both sides and enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court referred supra , I am of the
considered view that though the respondents demanded
for payment of a sum from the petitioner towards the open
space and accordingly payment was made, no allotment
letter or possession certificate was issued in favour of the
petitioner confirming a right in his favour with regard to
the open space as sought in the present petition.
17. Insofar as the contention that the boundaries of
the sale deed’s check bandi in the possession certificate
will prevail over the extent mentioned in the sale deed is
concerned, the said contention cannot be appreciated in
the writ proceedings. It is for the petitioner to urge such a
ground in a duly constituted suit. Mere demand of an
amount by the respondent No.3 and retaining such
amount with the respondent - KIADB for a period of time
itself would not amount to allotment of excess land in
favour of the petitioner. It can be termed as an intention
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
to allot the said extent of land and until the said intent to
allot open space in favour of the petitioner culminates into
actual allotment by the KIADB, the petitioner has no
vested right upon the excess land. It is trite law that even
after assuring the petitioner of allotment of open space,
the said space is allotted to the respondent No.4 and later
a registered sale deed is executed in his favour cannot be
annulled in writ proceedings. The registered sale deed
cannot be set aside as sought in the writ petition as there
are disputed questions of facts which are required to be
gone into. Registered sale deed carries a strong legal
presumption of validity and genuineness and unless the
said presumption is rebutted by a cogent evidence, the
same cannot be set aside in writ proceedings. The
appropriate remedy would be to file a suit for declaration
and cancellation of sale deed before the competent civil
court. My view gains support from the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarafat Ali
(Deceased) through LRs and Others Vs Deputy
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
8
Director of Consolidation Haridwar and Others
wherein at paragraph Nos.50 to 52 it has held as below:
“THE PRESUMPTION OF GENUINENESS AND
DUE EXECUTION
50) We will now advert to the next facet of the lis, namely,
whether the Consolidation Authorities and the High Court were
justified in doubting the genuineness and due execution of the
registered sale deed dated 04.06.1957 based on alleged
discrepancies relating to the attesting witness. 51) At the
outset, it is necessary to note that the original sale deed dated
04.06.1957 was a registered document. The original deed
having not been available, a certified copy thereof was
produced before the Consolidation Authorities. It is trite law
that a registered document carries a presumption of valid
execution and genuineness unless rebutted by cogent evidence.
In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the recent
decision of this Court in Hemalatha (D) by Legal
Representatives v. Tukaram (D) by Legal
Representatives and Others16 , wherein the relevant
observation read thus:
“ 31 . It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed
carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and
genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality
but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the
document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually
declare a registered instrument as
a “sham”. Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh v.
Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 3531, Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs.
v. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through Lrs., (2019) 2 SCC 7272, and
Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, (2021) 15 SCC 3003, this Court
reiterates that the burden of proof to displace this
presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a
challenge can only be sustained if the party provides
material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate
that the Deed was never intended to operate as a bona
fide transfer of title.
32. The grounds typically accepted to challenge a registered
Deed at the instance of the vendee/executant are fraud or want
of capacity in any party or mistake of fact or fundamental
illegality like where the Deed was executed under deceit or sold
8
Civil appeal No. 8705/2026; Dt:23.06.2026
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
by a fraudster who did not own the land or where the Deed was
executed without consideration, namely, if no money or value
was actually exchanged despite recitals in the Deeds or where
there was coercion or intimidation like where the seller was
forced to sign without free consent.
33. While the aforementioned grounds are illustrative and not
exhaustive, this Court must caution against the growing
tendency to challenge registered instruments ‘at the drop of a
hat’. If the sanctity of registered documents is diluted, it would
erode public confidence in property transactions and jeopardize
the security of titles. In a society governed by the Rule of Law,
registered documents must inspire certainty; they cannot be
rendered precarious by frivolous litigation.”
(emphasis supplied)
52) The aforesaid observations leave little room for doubt that
a registered conveyance cannot be lightly brushed aside on
conjectures or insignificant discrepancies. The burden to
dislodge the presumption attaching to such an instrument lies
heavily upon the party assailing it, and such burden can be
discharged only through clear, cogent and convincing evidence
establishing fraud, fabrication, want of execution or any other
circumstance striking at the root of the transaction itself.”
18. It is open for the petitioner to sue the
respondent – KIADB for damages and it is also open for
him to seek for setting aside the sale deed executed by
the respondent - KIADB in favour of the respondent No.4
in appropriate proceedings in the civil court. This Court
also cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent No.3
had made a demand for payment of amount from the
petitioner and the said amount was kept with the
respondent – KIADB since 2011 onwards and the said
amount was never refunded to the petitioner. Hence, it
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
would be appropriate to direct the respondents to refund
the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from the date of receipt of the amount by the
KIADB till the amount is paid to the petitioner. This Court
is aware that the refund of the amount should normally be
with an interest at the rate prevailing in the regular
transactions and as per the rate of interest on the term
deposits in the nationalized bank. However, considering
the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the
considered view that the respondent – KIADB is liable to
pay the interest at the rate of 18% on the amount paid by
the petitioner from the date of payment received by KIADB
till the amount is disbursed to the petitioner. The lapse on
the part of the KIADB in not allotting the adjacent open
space to the petitioner has caused the petitioner with
certain difficulties as he was anticipating the allotment
which compelled him to file this writ petition. Hence, the
cost of the legal proceedings are also liable to be paid by
the KIADB to the petitioner and the said cost is computed
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
at Rs.50,000/-. For the aforementioned reasons, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed of .
(ii) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to
refund Rs.55,242/- along with interest at
the rate of 18% from 05.09.2011 till the
amount is paid to the petitioner.
(iii) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to
pay cost quantified at Rs.50,000/- to the
petitioner.
(iv) The aforesaid payments shall be made
within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a
suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11486
WP No. 201061 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030020282022
dated 04.04.2019 at Annexure-G in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
NJ/SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1