High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S S K Konnur Traders By Its … vs The Director Agriculture … on 19 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S S K Konnur Traders By Its … vs The Director Agriculture … on 19 February, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT BHARWAD

mrrea 11415 THE 19?" DAY or F€8RUARY§. ?2@A./ji'  T T

BEFORE

me HON*BLE MRJUSTICE M+:3 H~.A__N séiafirawgsrguukaé

way PETITION No.e1y1%24x2oo9iAémc) 
BETWEEN:   'A "   

M/s. SK.      
By its P'IOP1TiC3:T,OI'.:'   »   :
Srinivas ;I;_(c_}111_1i:1::" "
Aged 57  Bixsinésé _
Rfo. Sunjbafis -R5§li ';x{i1;rg  ' '
Belgaum I )ist.. .     .. PEFITIONER

(By Sri B1.v.S5map1;;,',--_Ad§.,)

        

Lk%.1; 71'VI:ieVD5;I1§:t:t(i"i,1CtE'. Marketing

"  V. Committee, Ramdurg

  Bfilgaum Dist. .. RESPONDENTS

  . f3_YESmt.Vidya Vati, HCGP for R1

Sri Mallikaxjun Cfiasareddy, Adv., for R2



-3-

This Writ; petition is filed under Arfieies 226 and :2;;i:7e of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugwed

oxder dated 7.12.2008 vfie Annexure-A passed };2y_"t§1.e' V.

respondent, etc.

) This writ petitierz coming on fey   '4 " = u

this day the Court made the following:- "
oRnEefle%  %
The petitioner is aflottedeite byirespohéeafi-}APzQ1c,
R-amdurg, for the purpese   Vshejp-~cun3e..
godown for its businese'   yard on

iease~--cum--sale  ;=._T11e--.v~eop3:%" fife.  lease-cum-sale

ageement   the writ petition.
2.  "I'71_1e_  ageement entered into

between the  reveal that the aliottee shall

 V.  s110;;§$*ithiI3 one year form. the date of

a31c:>t'1__11en£§"~~ f.['V'v~*e"Hewever, if certain unforeseen

 _  inteivene, the APMC shall extend the

H H "  _'for"c¢onstrL1ction for .2: further period of one year.

 petitioner who is the allottee of the site did 33.0%:

'T  " eehstruet the shop during the stipulated period, the

3/'



-3-

erder reiating to ferfeiture is issued agajnst~"'--~.th.e

petitioner. Such order of forfeiture is questiortecf   3

Writ petition.

3. Sri. Somapur, learned  

behalf of the petitioner sub1?e;TVit_itepi tfiat   = V L'

did not construct the RCC  
on the business on the  yr  up shed

because of paueity of   that the

inaction. --- t--o:t1T'~tf1e':'1 of A' the... vioefitioner is neither
intentiefi_a1"    is 130113 fide under the

facts and  the cases. That, if petitioner

 v is  e_i_ght"ir1es.r..tl*1s' time to construct the buflding,

 .:x£fou1ci._:beV"v<§6:zet111ct1'ng the building after obtaining

sai;efleneii'.§;é1;§iiVfmm the respoI1<1eI1t-AP'MC.

  ..   petition is opposed by Sri Malliakxjun C.

 learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

VT  by filing statement of objections and the learned

,
.

/7

.4-

Government Advocate by eemending that no leniezgeey

can be shown to the petitie-ner, inasmuch ‘Vie

petitioner has violated the clause contamefi ” ”

ageement entered into between the ‘petitiQI;:e’1§”.é;t_1(V1: the

APMC and consequently the orde»f”1fe1ahA.”ngpte_”fe~rfei.hei:~’enV’:

is legal and justified under thejf3,cts
cf the cases.

5. It is I”1()Tf}’s}1__ dispI1te:fthéat.”»theVypeititiexaer has not
eonst11;:tte”d*-the of one year or at
ieast yeaifsifeas in the lease-cum–~ sale

agreement ei?¢te’z”ed;_i;11:o Vhemeen the parties. Hewever,

V’ “the ‘-hetiziionegr hes”‘aiready started its business on the

sifeflixge by putting up temporary shed. The

pefit.ihI1er.is’ Epéltyixxg market C€SS also. Having regard to

it is clear that the pefifiener does not have

A e:.’*£;ifIe.,_i;ft9:teI1tien to aiienate the property allotted to it ta

party. Having regard to the totaiity and facts and

” circumstance 0f the cases, this Court is of the opinien

S/5

-5.

that interest at’ justice will be met. if the §€tfi”,i{)I1i”-3-{_’_ is

granted eight months’ time to construct the ..

prayed for. Accordingly, the following order

The forfeiture erder/notice

this writ petition is kept in ab_e3€§1ncf§’fof’ a V

momihs from this date, flake an

appficafion for sa11cti<V)r1 xE:f 'the: shop to be

constructed in the_ sit1:AA'a1ieVt@:-':£i 3 period of
five = ' vraispondents-aumoI'fl:ies
shall coi1_siii_er' filed by the petitioner for

sanctioning i:1A';:2.cc-firdance with Law Within five

– weezgsk :::;%¢mafaer;k petitioner shall construct the

” v0f;~v.:_:t:’91e~ ésiige allotted to it as expeditiously as

pdssifiie later than the outer limit of six months

‘frem the: fiiate of conamtmication of the sanctioned pian.

‘i$ “:I1adC clear that if the entire exercise is not

K : c;o§g’:i:2plete(1 Within a periocl of nine months, the

~ . ()réer/ notice impugned in this writ petition relating to

1/7

-5-

forfeiture revives automaticaliy and the site ,,

forfeited by the APMC. It is made clear

enurss to the benefit of the petitio’;’ié£*’O;11y;–x. -3 ” ‘«

Writ petition is cf