ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition inter alia seeking direction to respondent No.1 to take over possession of the land bearing plot Nos.1(P) and 6(A) situated in Tannirbhavi Industrial Area measuring to an extent of 3.41 acres by evicting the unauthorized occupants/hutments (respondents 4 to 24) and consequentially direct respondents Nos.1 to 3 to deliver vacant, physical, actual possession of the said land to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the course of its business, with a view to set up a Liquid Cargo Storage Facility Project (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Facility Project’ for brevity) in the district of Dakshina Kannada, it made an application dated 14.5.2003 to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) for allotment of land at Tannirbhavi Industrial Area, Mangalore. The respondent No.2, after examining the said application of the petitioner for allotment of land, by letter dated 13.05.2003 agreed in principle to allot an extent of 3 acres of land in plot No.1(P) for setting up a Facility Project. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner intended to start ‘A’ class petroleum terminal and since allotted area of 3.00 acres would not be sufficient to start and implement the project, it addressed a letter dated 12.9.2013 to respondent No.2 with a request to allot an additional land of 1.00 acre adjacent to 3.00 acres of land already allotted to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 after being satisfied that the additional land is required to start and implement the said project, allotted an additional area of 0.60 acres in plot No.6(A) in Tannirbhavi Industrial Area adjacent to 3.00 acres of land already allotted to the petitioner. However, as it is found that the actual measurement of the land allotted was 3.41 acres of land in plot Nos.1(P) and 6(A) of the Tannirbhavi Industrial Area for setting up the Facility Project, 0.41 acres of land was allotted instead of 0.60 acres, as stated by respondent No.2 in his letter dated 6.11.2003. 4. However, as it is found that the actual measurement of the land allotted was 3.41 acres of land in plot Nos.1(P) and 6(A) of the Tannirbhavi Industrial Area for setting up the Facility Project, 0.41 acres of land was allotted instead of 0.60 acres, as stated by respondent No.2 in his letter dated 6.11.2003. 4. It appears that the petitioner has deposited initial payment towards land comprised and since the said allotted land was occupied by unauthorized occupants, communication was made with respondents 2 and 3 requesting them to take early action in evacuating the unauthorized occupants and as no positive action taken by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.19612- 13/2009, whereby this Court by order dated 14.6.2010 passed the following order :- “(1) The third respondent shall consider the request of the second respondent for eviction of the unauthorized occupants. (2) If any such eviction proceedings is sought to be initiated, needless to say that unauthorized occupants are required to be heard. (3) It is also open to the petitioner to make an application for allotment of the area of equal dimension in the said industrial area. If such an application is made, the same shall be considered by the Board subject to its availability. If the said application for an alternate area is granted, the petitioner is required to surrender the entire area allotted earlier to the Board.” 5. Though an alternative option was provided to the petitioner to make an application for allotment of the area of equal dimension to the said industrial area, the petitioner has not opted for the same and insisted for evacuation of unauthorized occupants of the allotted land. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, no action has been taken by respondent No.1 herein to consider the request of respondent No.2-KIADB for eviction of unuathorised occupants. Contempt proceedings in CCC (Civil) No.608 of 2012, initiated by the petitioner/complainant, came to be disposed of on 4.12.2012 dropping the contempt proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred SLP No.11237/2013 and the same came to be disposed of with an observation that if the petitioner desires to approach the concerned authority/court, the said authority/court is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned order. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred SLP No.11237/2013 and the same came to be disposed of with an observation that if the petitioner desires to approach the concerned authority/court, the said authority/court is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned order. 6. In the meantime, respondent No.1 has passed the order impugned on 31.10.2012 observing that the possession of land has been handed over to the petitioner on 25.9.2008 by the KIADB and now as the property is in the custody of the petitioner-Company itself, the District Administration cannot invoke the provisions of the KLR Act, 1964 to evict the persons from the encroached land. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 7. The learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel on record for the petitioner, would submit that the order impugned at Annexure-A is void-ab-initio since no notice was issued to the petitioner and the findings of respondent No.1 is unjustifiable and cannot be held to be legal inasmuch as no lease-cum-sale agreement being executed by respondent No.2-KIADB relating to the lands allotted to the petitioner, handing over physical possession of the land where the unauthorized occupants are squatting over, could not invalidate the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.19612-13/2009. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 12 to 24 (unauthorized occupants) would submit that the findings of the respondent No.1 insofar as non-applicability of the KLR Act, 1964 to the case on hand is justifiable in view of the possession certificate issued by the KIADB to the petitioner on 25.09.2008. Since the petitioner could not get the clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Department of Ecology and Environment as per the condition 12 of the allotment letter dated 16.06.2003, no lease cum sale deed has been executed. However, the petitioner is in absolute physical possession of the land allotted. Hence, the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to evict the unauthorized occupants from the land in question. 9. Learned AGA, Sri. Anandeeswar appearing for respondent No.1 supporting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, Sri. S.N. Bhat appearing for respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 12 to 24 submits that the petitioner cannot seek for eviction of the unauthorized occupants from the private land which is in possession of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 9. Learned AGA, Sri. Anandeeswar appearing for respondent No.1 supporting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, Sri. S.N. Bhat appearing for respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 12 to 24 submits that the petitioner cannot seek for eviction of the unauthorized occupants from the private land which is in possession of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 does not dispute that the order impugned is passed without hearing the petitioner and such an order impugned is untenable. 11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. It is well settled legal principle that order passed by any quasi judicial authority, without issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties would render void-ab-initio. The fulcrum of dispute revolves around this lacuna of not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by respondent No.1 before the passing the order impugned. 13. It is true that the matter has been traversed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the order passed in the contempt petition, that itself would not preclude the petitioner in participating the proceedings before the respondent No.1, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.19612-13/2009. No narrow interpretation can be given to the direction issued by this Court in the said writ petitions, inasmuch as the respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner) therein shall consider the request of the respondent No.2 (KIADB) for eviction of the unauthorized occupants. The same cannot be construed that the petitioner is not entitled for an opportunity of hearing, before decision is taken by the respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner). Indisputably, no notice being issued to the petitioner before taking decision by the respondent No.1, the said order impugned cannot be sustained. Hence, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the order impugned at Annexure-A is quashed. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned including the petitioner herein. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Respondent No.1 shall take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner after hearing the parties as aforesaid. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.