m we HIGH com? or KARNATAK.4g..._4'4'
cxacurr semen AT nmawao
DATED THIS THE 12*" oA§m?* "
BEFORE 2__
THE HON'BLE MR..':'U5TICE MQHAN sHAm.r§NAe;c5§2oAR
WRIT P§nnoMNo.é1:a4;g,_/309» (APMC)
BETWEEN:
M/s. Sant¢9SVh'V§\3y&a§m3.f;i madam'---_ '
By its Proprie£0.r;_ ._ "
S/o Nagarajappa"I*}}Iamati..
Age 2'23 years",iQcg: 4Busii:1::s$_ --
R] 0 Mastir, ' "Petitioner
(By Sri si1n:s1:,Nf Adv. ,)
..............._... -'M...
. 1'. 1' 'r2:.¢ muzémr
V Ppoducc Marketing
._ " Raj Bhavan Road
' 560 001.
2. Thai
AA , Agric'ulturc Produce Marketing
_ Egmmittee, Hinakerur
E-iaveri E)i-strict. ..Rcspondc:uts
-{By Smt. Vidyavati, HCGR, for R1;
Sri Shivaraj P Mudhol, Adv, for R2)
-2-
This writ petition is filed unéer Articises 22:5 91'
the Constitution of India, praying to quash fix:
order dated 30-8-2008 vtide Am1exure-~B passed jvthe" R22- '
This writ petition comm' g {51im£br.pz'ehm;' V b
this ciay the Court made the followjingy A.
Sri Shivaxaj P. Eamon behaxr of
the second the learned
Goveenmenfi A{'i%zOca;§te we of the first
'l'A1*:e_' * allotted certain site by
Hirekerur, for the purpose of
. jconsfiuctien. __ of shop-cum--godown for their business
APMC yard on lease-cum-sale basis. The
the lease-cum-sale ageement is produced along
.. AA trifle writ petition.
i/>
-3-
2. The iease-cum-sale agreement
between the parties clearly reveals that the
' 'JV': WV v
constmci; the shop within one year fiV%a':"€he:::datevL' _
ailotment. However,
circumstances intervene,' >
time for consizructiqn for offione year.
Since the petitioner"~e;=§ho of site did not
construct the» period, the
order eiesued against the
is questioned in this
., ndfiéeate appearing on behalf of the
" V. - eubnfiifliefii that though the petitioner did not
building, they have been carrying on
the bnsfiess on the very property by putting up shed
Ae of paucity of funds. He submitted that the
" inzietion on the part of the petitiener is neither
----fiixztentional nor maia fide, but is bonafide on the facts
V'
.g;-
and circumstance of the case. If petitione1f.__ieVV'ga5£=V.1.;ii";ed
eight montihs' {time to construct the
be constructing the building size'o:.xta::1i:;g;_jsa.§1;;ti:;;:e:d 7
glam from the respondent->~A_PMC§'.'
4. Writ petition Mudhol, learned advocate the APM C, and the 'eontending that no leniency " 1":o.. petitioner, inasmuch as contained in the
agreemeet ibetnvveen the petitioner and the
APMC the order relating to forfeiture
A under the facts and circumstance
‘V of ii1efeuase;e- . V
not in dispute that the petitioner has not
conetxfiicted the shop within the period of one year or at
in two years as stipuiated in the lease-«cum-«sale
iageement entered into between the parties. However,
1/’
-5-
the petitioner has already started the i)usi11ess~e_e;§[~t__he
site in question by putting up
petitioner is paying market aIs:.e’.'”
circzzmstanees, it cannot be said the ef
the petitioner in not Ame not V L’
bona fide. The petitioiter «gave en};?..inftenflon to
alienate the site parties in
whatsoever the totality and
facts Court is of the
will be met if the
peti.tiVez1er.’_iS _fi’1\o11ths’ time to construct the
buildjngtas the petitioner. Accordingly,
‘ _ t}v£e7ti’o§1ow*i11g ofder-is made:-
— order] notice which is impugwd in
tllie is kept in abeyanee for a period of nine
xmorii:!§e from this date. The petitioner shall make an
V x.,AVap1§fiieation for sanction of the plan for the shop to be
t V. _ eonstructed in the site allotted to the petitioner Within a
P/5
-5-
period of five weeks from this date. The
APMC snail consider the applicatio11 __.}’fiI:f.:-‘ti’ K
petitioner for sanctioning of in
Iaw within five weeks t11<:V1f<=.ai'ce1"4§'–«A_'*I'}1e *'
construct the shop on _ aflétfiéfi as
expeditiously as outer
limit of six of
the that if the entire
6X6I'Ci;'.:v3§3___ . ii " Eicompieted within
a A order] notice impugned in
this " Qefitiofi; = to forfeiture, revives
autégfiaficallf site would be forfeited by the
o '«.It.,ii$v1nade clear that this order enures to the
. Offiefifioner only.
is disposed afaocordirlgly.
Sd/-
Judge
*ck/-