High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Sangal Primary Agriculture Co … vs The Director Agriculture … on 9 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Sangal Primary Agriculture Co … vs The Director Agriculture … on 9 July, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH comm' OF. KARNATAKA
CERCUYI' BENCH AT DHARWAD A' J
DATED THIS THE om E}AY_QFJ_ULY_.,' Quééij  
BEFOREY, _ ' u  " 4 __ V
THE HONBLE MR.Jus'r1cE,:vzQ_HAz§'s1§ANrAmAC;§>i;_15A§  V
'WRi'1' PETITION No.6 i'%'1§§fi,r2oo9'iAém¢'3   
Beztweeni    ' 

ws. SANGAL PRMARY AGR1c;ULTU;?E

CO-OF'ERA'I'IVE BANK L'I'D.,....._  V ..
BY1TSCHIEFEXE(3UT1VE;,'  _  

SR1. VENKAPPA HAI~i'}U.IdANTHAP?A * _ 
NINGARADDL. V.Y.EARS,   .  V

occ: BUSINESS,_:R';{o.sANGAL,   

'I'Q: RAMDU_RG;~.Dli's'F;.,BEi,._(§AU'9.4;'   ...PE)'f'¥'i'iONER

(By sn'.B,'s:,S"o.MAPUI§';'   ,,  " _.

And: ; ' 'V

 ?i'H»E=DI§?.ECTOA1?,' """ 

x "  -{fly 'B'I".fi. R.vIV§"..I-{A"l"'E'I, HCGP,

= .. _ A<31:21c:.1'L*i*URE MARKETING,
_ 225;; ._Bf=!A'«{A*1§.'f ROAD, BANGALORE --- 560 001.

2. A' THE SE€1R'ETARY,
A{3r..E€I'CULTURE PRQDUCE MAFEKETING
C.OM.lV£f'T'I'EE, RAMDURG, D3315 BEELGAUM'
V " .,.R'ESPONIf)EN'FS

  =s;:::__m§;HAbrrEsH KO'I'T'LII-"-";a;*£.;_f':5;;'g..

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER   

Office objections are over~r1i:L1efii’.V_A’

Kottur Shettar, learned advoea’i:§is di1§e:’:t¢dV.tfo

on behalf of res190I1den$;;::1’¥€?.2._” _ ‘Q

Sri. RH. Efiaigti, Government
Pleader is reefiondent No.1.

2. “*:*1rge p¢1;ii1c;neM§%ee is allotted certain site by

= Razradurg, Belgaum, for the purposes of

ehop cum godown for its businws purpose

on lease cum sale basis. The copy of

V ghe 1ease-‘–{2fim- sale ageement is produced aleng with the

3. The 1ease–cum~sa1e agreement entered into

V U between the parties clearly reveal that the allettee shall

V’

construct the shop Within one year form ‘A

alloment. However, if certain uI;fore_seer1″ei1=ei;;1fistoooes” ”

intervene, the APMC shall extend the for

for a further period of one i_t31eV I§i’iiZ;ii§i0fl€f;WhO” L’

is allottee of the site dict. not cpné;euc¢.em¢ shop the
stipulated period, the Aiforfeitme is issued
against the ‘ “of forfeiture is

questioned in” I-w:5it”pet:§i:ion;–‘” ‘

4; appearing on behalf of the

petitioner’ inaction on the part of the

petitigtinezj is ‘V z1ei_ther ‘intentional nor mala fide, but is

the facis and circumstance of the case. If

eight months’ time to eonstzruet the

_ hui1tii.t.1g,»..’: ‘ii; ‘jiweuld be eonsmaeting the building after

H H K sanctioned pian fmm the resmndent-APMC.

5. Writ petition is opposed by Sri Mahantesh Kottur

ujfshettar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

APMC, and the lmmed Government Advocate by

\~./’>

contending that no Ieniency can be shown

petitioner, inasmuch as it has violated me *

contained in the agveement entered’ V’

petitioner and the APMC and eeneeqnently

relating to forfeiture is _just.ified» facts” V L’

and circumstance 0ftI’1t_?.C&Se.VAn——

6. It is not’ in dispyfite the ‘ ‘netifioner has not

consuncted the of one year or at

least 173:3 in the Iease–cum- saie
ag1’eement..eii£e1’ed’ii-ite the parties. The petitioner

is pa}fhxge..mei’ket{ fiaving regard to the same, it is

petitiener does not have the intention to

” alletted to it to 3!” parties. Under

V V’ _ it cannot be said that the intentien of

H H ” petitiener in not eonstnxcting the building was not

fide. It does not have any intention to alienate the

T ‘site allotted to it to thin} parties in whatsoever manner.

3 Having regard to the totality and facts and circumstance

V’

of the case, this Court: is of the opinion « _

justice will be met if the petitiggzer is ” ” V»

months’ time to construct the 3.1%’; it.’

Accordingly, the following 0r(il=_;r–.,’g§ rr1edei~ V A’

The forfeiture orflerf in
this writ petrltion is period of nine
months from shall make an
application for the shop to be
allotted to it within a

Period of we date. The respondents-

V ‘shall lime epplication filed by the petitioner

of plan in accordance with law within

The petitioner shall construct the

_ shofi on’: sites allotted to it, as expeditiously as

K eut. not later than the enter limit of six months

fiend the date of commmficatien of the sanctioned

T It is made clear that if the entire

exercise is not completed within

V:

a period of nine months, the _

impugwd in this writ petition relatigg to foIi’ei§:;1t*”e; r<:vi1%e"~ 2

automatically and the site would fcg'I'f.eitév;i. by?

It is made clear that this ordéf £0 *

petitioner only.

Writ petition is

Kmv