Karnataka High Court
M/S Basaveshwara Trading Co vs The Director on 3 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7298
WP No. 106621 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 106621 OF 2016 (APMC-)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BASAVESHWARA TRADING CO.,
PLOT NO.109, MARKET YARD, ILKAL,
BY ITS PROP. KARBASAPPA,
S/O. BASALINGAPPA MURAL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
2. SRI. AMARESHWARA TRADERS,
R/O. KARADI, TALUK: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT,
BY ITS PROP. ANAND,
S/O. AMARESHAPPA JALIHAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
...PETITIONERS
(BY MISS/SMT. VAIBHAVI U. INAMDAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed
AGRICULTURE MARKET DEPARTMENT,
by BHARATHI H
M
II, RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.06.13
2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
12:19:05 +0530 MARKETING COMMITTEE,
HUNAGUND-587118,
DIST: BAGALKOT,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJASHEKHAR GUNJALLI, ADV. FOR
SRI. C.S. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7298
WP No. 106621 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED:16.06.2016 AT SUBJECT
NO.3, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-E; ISSUE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO GRANT
ONE YEAR TIME TO PUT UP THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE
NO.109 AND 14 RESPECTIVELY AS PER THE DECISION RENDERED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned
resolution dated 16.06.2016 at subject No.3, wherein, the
allotment of site to petitioner is resolved to be forfeited by way
of resolution and the said resolution is forwarded for approval
to the Superior Authority.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
HCGP for respondent, and learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents
have no locus to issue the impugned resolution, as the 2nd
respondent has failed to provide infrastructure in the market
and sub-market yard to enable the petitioner to construct a
shop cum godown. Unless 2nd respondent provides basic
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7298
amenities, the allottee cannot commence with the construction
of shop cum godown to enable him to carryout business in the
APMC yard.
4. This petition is filed in 2016. Though the learned
counsel appearing for 2nd respondent has vehemently argued
and contended that the APMC yard, where the petitioner is
allotted a site, is fully developed and all basic amenities are
provided to enable the allottees to commence their business.
No statement of objection is filed and the oral counter that the
APMC yard is fully developed is not substantiated.
5. There may be some laxness on the part of the
petitioner in not complying with terms and conditions of lease-
cum-sale agreements. However, in the absence of statement of
objections and documents to substantiate that the sites were
allotted and they are fully developed. This Court is compelled to
take a lenient view, though the 2nd respondent has resolved
and has recommended to cancel the allotment of site and that
approval is sought from the Superior Authority.
6. This Court is of the view that this is a fit case to grant
some indulgence. In an identical case, this Court, referring to
the judgment in the case of Sri. Uma Maheshwara Traders
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7298
Vs. The Director of Agricultural Marketing and others, in
W.P No.108704/2015 dated 31.08.2015, has allowed the writ
petition and the forfeiture order was set aside and liberty was
reserved to the allottee therein to move an application seeking
sanction of plan. In the present case on hand, the Authority has
not ordered for forfeiture of site. The impugned resolution is
passed resolving to forfeit the site allotted to petitioner. There
is no forfeiture order. No material is produced by 2nd
respondent to indicate that it has provided basic facilities such
as electricity, water and drainage facility. With the above
observations, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned resolution under challenge is liable to be quashed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
1. Writ Petition is allowed in part.
2. The impugned resolution dated
16.06.2016 at subject No.3 insofar as the
petitioner is concerned, passed by the 2nd
respondent, vide Annexure-E is hereby
quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7298
3. The petitioner shall forthwith submit an
application seeking sanction of plan in order to
put up construction on the plot allotted to him
within six weeks from today.
4. The 2nd respondent/APMC shall consider
the anticipated application for the plan
sanctioned within six weeks thereafter in
accordance with law.
5. The petitioner shall commence and
complete the construction of building within an
outer limit of six months from the date of
receipt of sanction plan.
6. If the petitioner further defaults and fails
to complete construction of the shop within six
months from the date of sanction of plan, the
impugned forfeiture order shall stand
automatically revived.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
