Industrial land resumption cannot stand without considering whether high-tension lines prevent construction.

The petitioner was initially allotted Plot No. 163/B1 in Belur Industrial Area in 2007.

At her request, KIADB allotted her an alternative plot, No. 171/E, measuring 4,004 square metres, and the parties executed a lease-cum-sale agreement on 29 April 2010.

The petitioner did not complete construction or submit the required utilisation plan, stating that high-tension lines running through the plot prevented construction.

After proceedings under Section 34-B of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, KIADB ordered her to surrender the plot by 15 December 2016.

She challenged that order, contending that KIADB had failed to properly consider the high-tension-line issue.

Whether KIADB’s order directing surrender of the plot was liable to be quashed for failing to adequately consider the petitioner’s contention that high-tension lines passing through the plot prevented construction.

Whether the matter should be remitted to KIADB to assess the effect of the high-tension lines and, if the plot remained usable, allow the petitioner to submit an alternative utilisation plan.

The Court considered the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, including the proceedings under Section 34-B and the reference to Section 14 in the record.

It also considered the lease-cum-sale agreement, which required the petitioner to submit a comprehensive plan for utilisation of the land and provided for termination and resumption in the event of non-compliance.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court’s reasoning required KIADB to consider the petitioner’s material contention about the physical suitability of the allotted land before determining the consequences of her failure to develop it.

The Court noted that photographs showed two lines of electricity poles running through the plot and that the petitioner had made representations about the resulting difficulty in constructing a building.

Although KIADB’s order referred to her representation, it dismissed the contention without adequately examining whether the high-tension lines made construction impracticable.

The Court also recognised that the petitioner had not submitted a feasible plan as required by the agreement and that KIADB’s concern about her failure to establish the industry had substance.

In the circumstances, the Court held that the effect of the lines required specific reconsideration, with a site visit if necessary, before a final decision was made.

If the plot was found usable, the petitioner was to be given an opportunity to submit an alternative plan.

The inquiry and decision were directed to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The petitioner could apply for a fresh allotment, to be considered subject to prevailing market rates and applicable conditions, and the interim order was extended until then.

The petition was disposed of.