WP No.65489 of 2009
: 1 : ~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE DRJUSTICE K.BHAKTHAvATsM;A
WRIT PETITION No.65489/2009 (A.PI.\/IeC)*7ff _:'
BETWEEN:
M /s Shrikant and Company,'
By its partner
Shrikant Chandrakant Mirajkeif',-.::_ B
Age: 53 years, Occ: BLtS~iV1_'1€SS',B'
R/or Munavalli, T q: Sa*va{ia.tt_i, .4
_'.';_..PETITIONER
Dist: Belgaum. V V
(By Sri_j V B
AND:V'V.J " '
1. The .,Direotof, ' ~
Ag1fic1i'}t.ure I\/I'e.r3;;e_tj.Vng,
_ A Raj Bhavan Road,
A _VBa,nge10If'eV--:'55_0 001.
2; rr1;e SecEete;fy,
Agrie;1It11r'e Produce Marketing
Committee, Savadatti,
.o Dist:"Be1gaum.
...RESPONDENTS
{By”Sfnt. K.Vidyavathi, Addl. Govt. Advocate for R1
Shri. Mal1ikarjur1.C.Basareddy, Advocate for R2)
WP No.65-489 of 2009
: 2 :
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 85 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order dated 15.09.2008 so far as it reiates to
?lot No.21 in Munavalli sub market yard vide Anne.X1__.1re–
A passed by the 2nd respondent; and direct, the
respondents to provide infrastructure in the sub’-rnarket
yard Munavalli to enable to the petitioner to§i__co12VS:truc’t_ _
shop and godown. 2′ it
This writ petition comingflmone
hearing this day, the Court made’~.the;”fo.11oWin’g:_0′ 0′ ”
oRQERgI_ rd”
The petitioner is beforei:”thiS.._.LACourt–_praj}ing for
quashing the at
Annex;’1reV¥Aei the..iireispondents to provide
infrastructure yard, Munavalli to
enable the petitionier to construct shop–cum–godoWn.
V-V102;_–.si.e.arnedV’counsel for respondent No.2 submits
the general direction given in Writ Appeal
No…iS10,/.20–0″‘i’ (APMC) (N.V.Somashek:ar Vs. The APMC
Others) disposed off on 19.12.1007, a resolution
it to be passed and the Egigned order was issued
WP No.65489 of 2009
: 3 :
to the petitioner stating that the plot allotted to the
petitioner for construction of sh0p–cum–godowr1 was
forfeited on the ground that in spite of expiry of
period as per the 1ease–eu.m–sa1e, the _
yet put up construction.
3. Learned counsel for the
respondents have not provided
so as to put up shop–cum–§%odown’» which
was allotted in favot;rV:y”of further
submits’t’th-atiin.ii:d;ent’iea1.’cas’es;’this court has granted
one year’ tirne to ‘L1p’i’eon_struction and, therefore, the
present petition nfIVayA*?)i’e’disposed off on identical terms.
v_~5,4iiieparneds.o_o_nnse1 for respondent No.2 submits
‘that.,there:’i$A””*zio1ation of terms and conditions of the
1e3.set¥Ctirn:–3js_ai.eV deed agreement and, therefore, the
isshpimpngnied order came to be passed and there is no
4.ja:I~;}iéiga1ity or infirmity in the i ed order.
WP N065489 of 2009
: 4 :
5. At the very outset, it must be mentioned that
the petitioner was not a party to the order dated
19.12.2007 made in N. V.Som.ashekar’s case, supra,gIn
View of the general direction given by the
of this Court, the respondents
identified the allottees who :1,
construction as per theV.’£ease4§ciihrii–sa1€’j’ii”
respondent No.2 has “order
forfeiting the plot a11ott:ed– petitioner.
‘if.-‘,iie7i_”:”lS”:’:Iii’i1jC3-Tflétefiéiihipiaéed on record that the
impugried’ order’ passed after affording an
opportunity: of petitioner. However, this
has dispoisedwof identical writ petitions granting
put up construction. The petitioner is
aisoppientitledefor similar relief.
a Innthe result, the writ petition is disposed of
one year time from today to put up
WP No.65489 of 2009
construction failing which the impugned order stands
revived.
Granted three weeks time to ..
appearance by the Additional Gcfipvelfntrnjenty
respondent No. 1.
Kms*