High Court Karnataka High Court

Rlh Rice Industries vs The Agriculture Produce … on 26 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Rlh Rice Industries vs The Agriculture Produce … on 26 August, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS ms 26TH DAY OF AUGUST gore'    _

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  é  T

WRIT PETITION No.25649/2o i*e {AP};/1{:; f V': "  "

BETWEEN:

RLH Rice Industries

A Registered Firm .. vv

Rep. by its Partners   . 

I. R.L. Han1?rrr1a:;§1tIi1a;§:pa 1:  V. 
S/o.Laxn1'anappVa   "
Aged 66.Vyear;.'sV '

2. sum.     -- -

W/"O,  Eiariumaaathappa

Aged  years  Q 

3. }f<;I~1._ Nagabushan V"

_"  Q, R. L. Hafiuraaiithappa

  VLAge'd:'42' years

  
'  'Sr/0. Laairnanappa
'--Ageg:_1'5.2 years

' '  L ' " .  AA  ..f:§hivakumar

.. ' W8/o._ R.L. Hanumanthappa
* ._Aged 38 years



 flV'Co&n"stit13;tiori"«._of India praying to quash the order

 _ flday, the Court made the following»

All are r/0. No.26/236
Chikkanahalli, New Extension

NittuVal1i,Davanagere  PETITIQNEjRSe,A'
(By Sri. R.L. Patil, Adv.) 2 i M

AND:

1. The Agricuiture Produceevh/£arketiI_1'g--

Committee, Davanagere  "_
By its Secretary  M

2. The Director

Agricultural Marketiflg _  } 2'   
Bangalore *    --'.':..5"»VRvE=SPONDENTS

(By Smt. Anupaffi'@::PIegti:e, Adtr.  
Smt. M.C. Nagaehii_ee_. 1~I(§C§yI*',_for"R52] .

 H':I'&=k**.=£=

 writ hVpei:it--i--9n is filed under Article 226 of the

 'dt.4.-V1i;2QO8-.pas.sed by respondent at Ann-G and etc.

 This -petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this

 



ORDER

Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned Counsel, ‘

take notice for R–1. Learned HCGP_,i.s. directed it it

for R-2.

2. The petitioner was at
Davanagere APMC yard aif apgreement as
per Annexure–C dated in its favour.
As per the ought to have to
put up ‘Within a period of one
year. put up construction as
above, the orders as per Annexures–‘D’,

‘Ffand forfeifing site in question. The petitioner

.’ it”hasV’r–chai1en’ged thetwirtalidity of the said orders as per

‘F’ and ‘G’ in this writ petition.

3″. {have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

so far as the petitioner is concerned are hereby quashed.

The petitioner is granted one year from today to pu”t–_»u.p

construction on the site in question in accordanc.e_§v,ithc:’the<

terms and conditions at lease cum sale agreeme.nt

Annexurewc failing which liberty . re.ser_Ved:~

respondents to take appropriate action against'the'~petiti§ner'V ._

in accordance with law. No costs,'

7. Learned.._ zrespondents are
permitted to appearance/vakalath, as the
case may be, eighfcweeks from today.

9 sa/gt
iiooeg