M/S. A Y Ramannavar And Sons vs The State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 15749 Kant

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.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191

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

(2010) 15 SCC 207

2018 (1) AKR 674

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191

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

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191

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:

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9191

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,