Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shivanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7226
WP No. 109232 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 109232 OF 2016 (APMC-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O. SHARANAPPAGOUDA AGASIMUNDIN,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. CHIKKA ADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT,
NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,
P.B NO.5309, BENGALURU.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR AND TAHSILDAR,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,
HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R3 & R4;
SRI. C.S. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2-R4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7226
WP No. 109232 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ANY OTHER WRIT
OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE LETTER
DATED:01.08.2015 BEARING NO.Kra.Maa E/395/Abhike-3/08
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, LETTER
DATED:13.08.2015 BEARING NO.Kra.U Ma Sa/Hu/342/2015-16
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THE
DEED OF CANCELLATION OF LEASE CUM-SALE DEED
DATED:21.10.2016 REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.1953 REGISTERED
IN THE SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE ILKAL VIDE ANNEXURE-D; A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTED THE
REGISTERED DOCUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF PLOT NO.61 SITUATED AT SUB MARKET YARD ILKAL
CANCELING THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DATED:21.10.2016 VIDE
REGISTRATION NO.1953 REGISTERED IN THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
ILKAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner who is the beneficiary of allotment of a
site in APFC Yard, committed default which compelled
respondent No.3 to forfeit the site. The petitioner assailing
the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by respondent No.3
filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.63312/2012.
2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner
submitted that petitioner would construct the building
within a period of one year from the date of
communication of the sanctioned plan. In the light of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7226
statement made by the counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, the Coordinate
Bench of this court taking a lenient view and bearing in
mind the petitioner's interest, was pleased to grant one
more opportunity to the petitioner to overcome the breach
that was committed by him, which led to forfeiture. It
would be useful for this court to refer para 4 of the
judgment rendered in W.P.No.63319/2012. Same is
extracted as under.
"4. Since the case of the petitioner is identical to
the case decided in the order as at Annexure-C, following
the said order and for the reasons stated therein, this writ
petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to apply
and obtain sanctioned plan for construction of the building
on the plot in question within a period of one month and
undertake and complete construction within a period of
nine months from the date of the sanctioned plan
becomes available. It is made clear that the said exercise
if not completed within the said period allowed, the
impugned forfeiture order at Annexure-B, shall stand
revived automatically and site in question would stand
forfeited in favour of respondent No.3."
3. On reading para 4 of the judgment, it is clearly
evident that petitioner was given a final chance to apply
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7226
and obtain a sanctioned plan for construction of the
building. The Coordinate Bench of this court also made
clear in the same paragraph indicating that, if the
petitioner fails to complete the construction within a period
of nine months, the impugned forfeiture dated 15.09.2008
shall stand revived automatically and the site in question
would stand forfeited in favor of respondent No.3.
4. As the petitioner failed to apply for permission,
the impugned letter dated 01.08.2015 was issued by
respondent No.2 and the cancellation of lease-cum-sale
deed was registered on the 21-10.2016.
5. From the records, it is evident that this site was
allotted to the petitioner prior to 2008. As petitioner failed
to put up construction, a forfeiture order was passed on
15.09.2008. At the intervention of this court, the
petitioner was given one more opportunity. Petitioner gave
an undertaking that he would complete the construction
within nine months. In the petition, the petitioner nowhere
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7226
disclosed that he applied for permission to enable him to
put up a construction.
6. The allotment made in favour of petitioner has
been valid since prior to 2008. Over the course of this of
more than 16 years, there has been no attempt made by
petitioner to put up construction or even obtain permission
to do the same. There is complete laxness and negligence
on the part of the petitioner. This court took a very lenient
view and gave the petitioner a final opportunity to put up
construction within the stipulated date. The petitioner has
not even obtained the necessary permission to put
construction. This shows the laid back attitude of the
petitioner. Despite this court granting a last and final
opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner failed to take
any action. This amounts to abuse of process. Petitioner's
laxness cannot be condoned at this juncture. Any
indulgence at this juncture would have grave financial
implications as there has been a lapse of over a decade,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7226
which has created a significant escalation in the price of
the site, which is the subject matter of the petition.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition
being devoid merit stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
Ct-mck
