IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS ma sow DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20:
BEFORE
TIIE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE s. ABDUL T'
WRIT PETITION NO.28O46_/V "
BETWEEN:
M/s. Sree Jayadeva Trading Co.
R/p. by its Proprietor '
Sri. MB. Vijayakumar
S/0. M. Basavanagowda
Aged about 54 years _ V
APMC Yardd, Hannah. 1
PETETIONER
[By Sri.
AND: 'T A C
'~ of
_ " R613,' by it._s Secretary
" =I)epa1*:;'11¢nt_0f Co--operation
'- . §.\/I11-l,t:'i€+':t0Ifijee:1--v"Building
K "'Banga.1"ojre5'56O 001
I2. '1)irVE:r:t(.)VI; of Marketing
x j N018, 2"" Rajbhavan Road
' Eangalore 560 001
_not1'ce R-3.
3. The Secretaty ;
Agncuiturai Produce Marketing Committee V
Honna1i,Davanagere District
[By Smt. M.C. Nagashree, HCGP, for R-1 and R-22¢ . C "
Smt. Anupama Hegde, Adv. for R-3) _. ~ .
=k****
This writ petition is filed nn;derbArticies of
the Constitution of India prayingato guash ._ the forfeiture
order (it. 13.10.2008 vide Ann--A xa-n*d.etc.
This petition comlnéon' day, the Court
made the fo11owIr1g:- " V --.
Lea'rne'd: take notice for R-- 1 and R-
2. Smt. Heg_de,_ Iearned Counsel, is directed to take
fietitioner was ailotted a site bearing No. 11 at
C Davanagere yard and a lease cum sale agreement as
Anne';-mdiie-B dated 9.11.1998 was executed in its favour.
per"'*t.he said agreement, the petitioner ought to have to
.___"p'utC§.1p construction on the said site within a period of one
year. Since the petitioner failed to put up construction0la_s
above. respondent No.3 has passed an order'
13.10.2008 as per Annexure~–A forfeiting the site it
The petitioner has challenged the twalidityaof it
dated 13.10.2008 as per Ar1ne>iure–A itnethis it
3. I have heard the learnedjvjtceiirisel for
4. Learned cousnei«–.I;tjr_’tlie that the
petitioner could notvput:Au-pv:.constri:Ictio’n the said site in
accordance tLie’tern1s coiiditioris of the lease cum
sale agreerneiittfduuelvElfto theV.:”reasonsVbeyond its control. He
further s’ubrn.its that’:_i’thle~netitioner will put up construction
on the said site i’na(;co1%dan’ce with the terms and conditions
* pf theliease cum saleagreernent within a period of one year.
A..snbmission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner_is’ and reasonable. In identical matters, this
_ “Court hasgranted an year’s time to the petitioners therein to
A construction on the sites allotted by the APMC in
ls.
‘x
‘H
accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease:
sale agreement. The petitioner is also entitled for.iéhe’ _
order.
6. In the result, the writ pet;i:tion.:.$u.CceeۤS
accordingly allowed. The order ‘dated at V
Annexure~A is hereby quashed. ‘Thepeptitiori-ariegidgranted one
year from today to pLifi~..up ontvthenv site in
question in accordance conditions at
lease cum sale which liberty
is reserved to appropriate action
against the petitiéo–e.ruin accordance with law. No costs.
7. ” for the respondents are
permitted to of appearance/vakalath, as the
‘d it “case”rnayi..&3e,”wjithin dadddpderiod of eight weeks from today.
. 8:1/c
Jiidge