High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.Varadaraja Shetty S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.Varadaraja Shetty S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HEGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED T HIS THE 931 DAY OF JUNE 2009

BEFORE

THE 1~«:om~3LE MR. JUSTICE Am' J.GU3I;iALee:*&:~ei   _

WRIT PETITION NO.15037_~4-.3  * 

BETWEEN :

1. S3:'i.Varadaraja Shetty,
S/ofiamaiah Shetty,  
Aged about 73 yeaIf'3',~..V_  *  
M/S.A.S.Revanna &"Bi*oth_eri¢:g, " "
APMC Yard, Batawadi,  V  V

2. (3)3'13-R-S-V3W313flaPP'*ia..._   I
S/ " _
Aged about '26. years," » " "
Par1x1er,"~ .e   
Mg S. Efrabha Enterprises,
 Yard, Tiunkur.

V   S1*~i:,R;.N¢:M*ahaveera,

 ._ '$;'%e,R.AgNagaraju,

Aged abo'm"23 years,
Parttviersv bf
M / 53,P'1'abha Enterprises,

e  'A APMC Yard, Batawadi,

   The Secretary, 'I'.A.P.C.M.S. Ltd.,

R] By its Secretary B,1€'_.Ravikumar,
Aged about 30 years,

'I'.A.P.C.M.C. LTD.,

APMC Yard, Batawadi, Tumkur.



4. Sr'1.Abdui Rehaman,

S / olviohammed Jafar Sab,
Aged about 55 years,

M / S. G.H.S .Chitrashekaraiah,
APMC Yard, Batawacii,
'I'umkur.

5. Sri.G.L.Padmara}'u,

S/o.Lat<=: M.S.Laksmapath,aiah,;  
Aged about 80 years, 

M / S.G.L.PadmarajL1 & Sons,

APMC Yard, Batawadi, '
Tumkur.

6. Sri.T.C.SadashivaiaE1,,  -  -- 
S / o.Y.Chandrs.s11eka_1'é;ia1';z,  V. " '
Aged about 80 years, " 'L .
M] S.Sadashiv.a. Oil D{3}.'i{):',= V
AFMC  '£3,-at,awé:di,, 

7 . Smt.Venkata1s;k$hIfij.,  ~ . 4 ..--~
W/0 Pattabhkamashétty,
Aged abo'ut,_,5Sy~eai's, 
1\!I;£S.I{::sa3f°i 'I'rader$,

 , APM{3'.Ya§d, Batéiiradi,

»  _ ...PE'i'ITiONERS

H "   Adv.)

',ANb;fl.x

   State of Kasmataka,

 Eépmsented by its
 Secretary,
' Department of Co--operat;ioI3.,
M1_L1ti-storied Building,
Bangaiore - 560 001.



-3-

2. Director of Marketing,
No.16, 2W3 Rajbhavan Road,
Bangalore -~ 560 001.

3. The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce
Market Committee,  _  '"--   
Tumktur.  ';;.m3_sp0NDEN'r$ 

(By Smt.Asha M.K1zmIQa:'geI'ti}:§§;th,
HCGP for 121&,_':~"2z2V_) *

This writ petitioms f€1edV:Lr1d.ér-.A1*tic1es 226 and
227 of the Cozlstitutiotfi "oft Eizidial wititi 'prayer to strike
down rule 10(1)ii a;_)_pc1:.ded' to £he'vKa1"I1a=;f;31<a Agicuitma}
Produce Marfiéetfgag (gégulafiofi .Qi'--A11etment of Property
in Market Yari'1.s)1'-Ri;1es;.._;2.Q€!4, "as vimfational, inapplicable,
arbitrary az1d'ii._c:pp0Sed 'ti; ..t:'f:.é Kamataka Agicuitural
Produce "*IvIar}:etiii'ig. (I?/§:ig.u1ati0n) Act, 1966 in so far
petitio;f1ers ai'(£'v{fQ§I_1VCCI'1"}.(3C1--=.V__ _ '

, This  Vvgfietitioii coming on for preiiminary

 , '_ het;:z*§,tzg, 'i;}1Vis deiy=,.1:1;¢tVCom*t made the following:

ORDER

H ” V’Sti1;t;23~$Ifri;tM.Kumbargerima.th, learned High Court

Goveézzliizciit Pieader accepts notice for respondents 1

A C_’*z3;Vr1′(i”

” “directed to take notice for respondent No.3. “=3

N 2. Mr.H.K.T}:1immegowda, learned counsel is

3. Lear1f1ed counsel appearing for the }:>etitie§sj:é:1e,_”‘-«¥::(i’.e’4

serve a set of papers an them.

4. Even though the matter is-<1'isi:ed fer preiimfiéaiy

hearing, with consent, it is taken

5. The petitiener ‘iieteitcetivvhelder
under the pmvisitmsv Ageeultural
Prodtice Marketifig :’»’§i”V§66. He is
dealing with in Tumkur
Ag’icLfltj_’§i”eIV tieifiitxittee Yard. It is his
case t1*1at”t1§ie–lieetteetfisp’be§i’i%g§%~~’reneWed from time to time

and t1:e..}iee1aiee_:Vis~»in Ae-ufieency til} 2018. An absolute

eale “dee€!”t’Awéis;p alsevvttefieeuted in respect of the site if;

fjpe¥:En’ex1ers. It appears, the pefitioners

jhavé””«COI3~etrtieted temporary sheds and doing their

“”~.§:§i1sir1es;s’=§4om the date of allotrment. It appears, the 3rd

resmaflent has forfeited the site pursuant ta the order

Vt ntpéidated 29.11,20{)8. Questioning the said forfeiture this

9’ “Writ petition is flied. «

-5-

6. When the matter is taken up, iearned
appearirig for the petitioners as well as the M
submit that the subject matter of’
covered by a ruling of this

pCti’i1iOI1S, copy of which is p§Odt1Ce(i’~at

7. Apparently, iiiipugned
forfeiture order is is remitted to
the 31% But however,
in the ‘ femitting the matter
to them to reconsider
the case efttiei would be an exercise in

futiiity. Indee<i,"iii iderificai cases, I have ruled that if

it gfeiited to the allottee to put up

if the said construction is not put up

within «the éaid time iimit, the order of ferfeiture would

it steed fetrived. Hence the foliowing order is passed:

Petitioner is granted a year's time te put up
construction. If the eoixetruetion is not put up
within one year the order of forfeiture would stand

revived.

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

8. Smt.Asha, M.Kumbargerimath,

appearing for respondents 1 and 2 is ‘

melno 0f appearance Within four-Wesks.

9. Mr.H.K.TI1imme§;0w_da, V ” n_ L.

appearing far respcndent tab} file his
power in the Regis’t:3§.

“””

0W2