Karnataka High Court
M/S. A Y Ramannavar And Sons vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191
WP No. 108758 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 108758 OF 2016 (APMC-)
BETWEEN:
M/S. A Y RAMANNAVAR AND SONS,
PLOT NO N3, APMC, BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
1. SHRI SANJOG APPAYYA RAMANNAVAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
2. SHRI. APPAYYA CHANDRAKANT RAMANNAVAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3. CHANDRAKANT MUDAKAPPA RAMANNAVAR,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
ALL ARE R/O: PLOT NO.N3, APMC, BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING,
MALAGALADINNI
NO.16, II RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
Location: HIGH
P.B. NO.5309, BENGALURU-560001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT AND LAW AND
LEGAL AFFAIRS, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
MARKET COMMITTEE, BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AMPC-BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. B. ANAND SHETTY, ADV. FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191
WP No. 108758 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED:22.10.2016, PASSED IN ORDER BEARING NO.KR. UU. MA.
SA.(BE)/1378/2016-17 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, VIDE
ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of forfeiture of APMC plot sold under registered sale deed dated 29.06.1992. The petitioner is assailing the said order.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
2.1. The petitioner, a registered firm, applied for allotment of a plot in APMC Yard to operate as a trader. The respondent-authority allotted the schedule property bearing Plot No.3 situated at APMC Yard, Belagavi in 1991 and executed sale deed on 22.06.1992. The respondent-authorities have issued two impugned notices on the premise that the petitioner has failed to utilize the plot for the purpose for which it was allotted and he has breached the APMC Rules and Regulations by subletting the property allotted by APMC authorities.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191 WP No. 108758 of 2016
3. Heard the counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent.
4. A short point that falls for consideration is as to whether respondent No.3 could have passed the forfeiture order by issuing impugned notices dated 22.10.2016 as per Annexure-L and impugned order dated 28.10.2016 as per Annexure-M.
5. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner, to buttress his arguments, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Totha Ganga Laxmi v. Government of A.P.1 and the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manjunath Shetty v. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore2. He also placed his reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagadish S Kallolli and another v. The State of Karnataka and others3.
6. Before I advert to the impugned notices, this Court needs to examine the right of the respondents over the plot. The 1 (2010) 15 SCC 207 2 2018 (1) AKR 674 3 W.P.No.67864/2011 -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191 WP No. 108758 of 2016 relevant recitals in the sale deed would clinch the controversy between the parties. The relevant recitals in the sale deed would clinch the controversy between the parties, the same reads as under;
"EzÀg° À è ¥Áèl £ÀA§gÀ N 3£Éà eÁUÁ £ÀªÀÄä PÀ«ÄÃnAiÀÄ°è oÀgÁªÀ £ÀA§gÀ 4/31.3.89 £Éà ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ mÁ棥 Àì sg À ï ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ¹QÌzÀÝjAzÀ PɼV À £À RįÁè eÁUÀ ¥Áèmï £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁPÉðl AiÀiÁqÀð ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ªÀÄzÀÝ£ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä 500-00 gÀP« À ÄUÉ Rjâ PÉÆnÖzÉÝêÉ. CzÀgÀ «ªÀgÀ f®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¨É¼U À Á« ¥ÉÊQ ªÉÆfPÀAUÁæ½zÀzÉð E°èAiÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA§gÀ 56.57,58, 59£Éà ¥ÉÊQ ¸Àll £ÀA§gÀ 56 £Éà ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄ ¥Áèl £ÀA§gÀ N 3GzÀݼv À É 20' Nx50' EzÀgÀ ZÀP§ À A¢ ¥ÀÇll ¥Áèl £ÀA§gÀ N 4 £Éà «Ä¼ÀRvÀÄÛ zÀll PÉÌ RįÁè eÁUÁ Gll 60 CUÀ°£À gÀ¸ÉÛ ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°g è ÀĪÀ RįÁè eÁUÁ ¥Áèl F ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ RįÁè eÁUÀ ¥Áæmï A.P.M.C. ¨É¼U À Á« EªÀgÀ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ a¥sï ªÀiÁPÉðnAUï D¦üøÀgï, ¨É¼U À ÀÆgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå EzÀgÀ No.53797 RMI À ¼ 1967-98 dated 20.2.68£Éà ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄUÉ C£ÀĸÀj¹ EªÀiÁgÀvÀ PÀnÖ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ°Ì £ÁvÉ¢AzÀ ªÉÄð£À ¥Áèl G¥À¨sÉÆÃUÀ vÀPÆ É ÌèÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁPÉðl PÀ«ÄÃn ªÉÄä® AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀzÀÄ D J¯Áè ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É §Azs£À PÀ ÁgÀPÌÉ EzÀÄÝ CzÀg° À g À UÉ C£ÀĸÀj¹ ªÉÄð£À eÁUÀ ¥Áèl £ÀªÀÄä gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä 500- è ÀĪÀ ±Àvð 00 zÉAzÀÄ £ÀÄgÀÄgÀÄ gÀP«À Ä£À°è vÀzAÀ UÀ¨sÀÆvÀª¸ À ÀÄÛ ¸À»vÀ ¥ÀQæ Pæ ÉÆlÄÖ F ºÉÆvÀÄ.Û ªÉÄð£À eÁUÁ ¥Áèl ¤ªÀÄä ¥Àv æ ÉåÃPÀ PÀ§eÁzÀ°è ªÀiÁ°Ì £ÁvÉ¢AzÀ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃªÉ ªÉÄð£À ¥ÁèlzÀ ºÀv¤ÀÛ A¢ ªÉÄð£À eÁUÁ ¥Áèl ¤ªÀÄä¥v æÀ åÉ PÀë PÀ§dÁzÀ°è ªÀiÁ°Ì£ÁvɬÄAzÀ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃJ ªÉÄð£À ¥ÁèlzÀ PÉÌ ºÉÆvÀ¤ Û AzÀ ¤ÃªÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ DVgÀÄwÛÃj."
7. If the recitals in the sale deed culled out supra are examined, this Court is of the view that respondent No.3/Authority cannot nullify the registered sale deed, by issuing a forfeiture notice. The recitals in the sale deed do -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191 WP No. 108758 of 2016 not contemplate any restriction on petitioners' right over the property in question. The sale deed also does not contain any specific recital indicating the manner in which the disputed property has to be utilized by the petitioners. The respondent/authority also cannot lay a claim over the property unless the sale deed executed by the respondents is challenged in the manner known to law.
8. The respondents have to approach the Civil Court and seek cancellation of sale deed. Unless sale deed is challenged and the same is set-aside by a competent Court of law, the order of forfeiture passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexures-L and M is one without jurisdiction. The recitals clearly indicate that the authorities have executed the sale deed and absolute right is created in favor of petitioners and therefore, the impugned notices on the premises that petitioners are guilty of subletting, is not sustainable. Accordingly, both the impugned notices are liable to be quashed. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191 WP No. 108758 of 2016 ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned orders dated 22.10.2016 and 28.10.2016 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-L and M respectively are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN/AM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60