High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S B B Madakatti And Brothers By … vs The Director Agriculture … on 14 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S B B Madakatti And Brothers By … vs The Director Agriculture … on 14 July, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
T!-IE I-IOFPBLE MR.JtI$'i'ICE Marni   

Wp6li25.09

in was man cotrfir or KARHATAKA
cxncurr BENCH AT amnwm

nxmn mza '!'I§E 1411: DAY or JULY,     " 

BEFORE

wnrr wrmox :zo.611§:-*.*»,_{g;_:;.A:_¢J"~s(>  ~. = 

Between; V . 4'

M/s. B.B.Madakatti and Bz"i;;t._h€3"s,
By its Partner, _   
Srfio. Basappa Baiiagzpa Madaitatti. 
Age: 48 Years, Occ:-BxZ1sin3ss;_' V  "
R/0. Sureban, 'i'q: Raméiurgf 

Dist: Bclgaurrl.   PE'!'l'i"!0NER

(By  fist !:ji'}.  "

And: 

1.

The LDi:V-ectzér, %s,jgr;¢;im4e Marketing,

_ Raj Bizavanfiaad, I::':~éngaiore~S60 O01.

   .... 

}'@r£cul;ure Produce marketing
 Raxndurg, Dist: Belgaum. ...R£»BPO!iDEH'!'fi

 ~g§§.,3x&t§"'r;.vi%é}9é&vath:, ECG!' {or n.1, as

'  Srig .3.hi'af:araj p.mu¢no2 Adv. For 9,2)

This petition is filed under' A.rtic§es 226 and 227 of the

=  ..Cx3nstii111:ion of India praying to quash the impugned order dated
 O?f~.12/2008 Vidfi Annexure--A gassed by {ha 294 Respondent and
 et::":...= '

This petition coming on far preliminary hearing, this day,

a " "ihe Ccurt made the foilowing:



Wp6I325.{39

ORDER

Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhoi,

notice on behalf of the saatssmd *’

Smt. K.\1idyavathi, the §}0§iérIz!i}t1£§nt’:’:Advocate
takes notice on be rgfipandent. H

* certain site by
resp6nder;t+VAT’I9iC;% Belgaum, for the purposes
of consfiuctiofi godewn for iis business

yard on least: cum sale basis. The

‘ Viéc;-py ‘$t1§[1aase~cum– saleagreement is preduced aiong

‘ with Vjijetitien.

z The leasmcum-sale ageement entered into

A’ ‘ ‘fiisrean the parties clearly reveai that the all-sttee shall

‘ ~ {:onstruct the shop within one year form the date cf

afloment. However, if certairi unforaseen

Wpél 125.09

3
circumstances intervene, the APMC shall oxtenii-,Ttl1e

time for construction for a fllrther period

Since the petitioner who is ailottee of riot.’

construct the shop during the

order relating to forfeiture iso iiesued

petitioner. Such order of isiqtiestioniegd in this

Writ petition.

3. behalf of the
petitioner though the pefitioner did not

construct the’ if has been carrying on the

business of) giroperty. He submitted that the

it the part of the petitioner is neither

mala tide, but is bonafide on the facts

eiifeiuiiietance of the case. If petitioner is wanted

i ‘ eight riionths’ time to construct the building, it would be

ttziiisjuixctiiig the bztilding after obtaining sanctioned

i from the respomient–APM(3.

wove

Wp6lI25.09

4. Writ petition is opposed by Sri _

Mudhol, learned advocate appeafing on”befi’3j1″‘~:::of”~~

APMC, and the learned “*”r;y«

contending that no 1enieio_ey._ V. si:oⅈf;«–,.,3;o *

petitioner, inasmuch. as clause
contained in the in_1;o between the
petitioner a1.:do.lt.’1e the order
relating tc; under the facts
and

:5 that the petitioner has not

the perim of one year or at

gas in the lease-cum~ sale

between the parties. Hewever,

petifionefi already started its business on the

question by putting up temporary shed. It is

mg§rket eess. Having’ regaré to the same, it is

‘ the petitioner does not have the intentien to

Falienate the property aliotted to: it to 3rd parties. Under

Wp6i 125.09

such circumstances, it cannot be said that t1fiE”Lf1t§_fl§fipi’i.

of the petitioner in not consungfing %s:.%g;<~,« ..

not bona fizzle. It does not have

the site allotted to it to~'1;m;-d germs %

manner. Having §act$ and
circumstance of thé is of the opinion
that interest (Lyf petitioner is
granted the building as
prayed the following order is

made:–.- " "

“The uf’c:rVt’§it*1.ire “o1{‘:E:er/ notice which is irilifiugltad in

,4; iictgitionvfiwkept in abcyance for a period cf nine

date. The petitioner shall make an

Afor sanction of the plan for the shop to be

V. «:::>;41sfi*1.icted in the reswctive site ailotted te it within a

‘ of five weeks from this date. The respondents-

“APMC shall consider the appiication filed by 1:116

petitioner for sanctioning of the plan in accordanw with

fix mj

wp61125,09

law within five weeks thereaiter. The _

construct the shop on the sites aHoiie4§.i:~..t

communication of the ~ T_ made
clear that if V is not cempleted
within a of order] notice
impug1ed .. V to forfeiture,
would be forfeited by
the fhat: this orcier enures to the

benefit 6f.. the petifioxierl petitioners in whose favour

V’ ._ le:{$e:;Acum–saie ‘deecis or the sale deeds are executed.

petition is disposed of accordingly.

SdL/-

KLDQE

kmv