1 W.P.32880/(}'}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANCAEO_REV"-7Cjjf*.,,
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER-'é§09:AA.V,; A
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE H.N.IvAGAIAEAII'OHAAI\I"I3.As..A
WRIT PETITION NO:'ég83.Q/2eo'9IAEIIAQ»I
BETWEEN:
S.M.SH|VA I<uIvIARA SWAMYI A
S/O S.R.MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED 65 YEARS, ..
APMC YARD, GLJi3Bi,fT' _ .
TUMKUR DIST;RfC'I7.,
PETITIONER
{By srI.N.SVuRES'ITE:fAi AC:Aé'I.fV.",
AND:
1
STATE OF I<_:ARAIfAATAKA':
R_iEP.BY ITS sE.cRETARY,
'-DEPARTMENT OPCO-OPERATION,
Vi' a.,MuLT'I.sTORIED BUILDING,
V _EAN§2:ALORO_E'g.¢ 560 001.
7 IjI'RECTO'R.'OF MARKETING,
'Ix!O.I.._5','2*."«-9 RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BANGALORE W 560 om.
'THE SECRETARY
'-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE, GUBBI,
TUMKUF3 DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS
JLIM”
2 WC I”-‘.33.’i.’§()/£1′)
(By Smt.M.C.NAGASHFtEE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 &
Sri.H.K.Ti-IIMMEGOWDA, Adv., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITEON FILED UNOER AFtTtCL.ES’.22=0:’&..227″
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAWNG TO’ CA4LL1.._EOR.T;HEI.. A
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS VANS ~STRiI<.E'~.I3Ow,N_'
RULE 10(t)(ii) & (iv) REAO WETH SCHEDULE 'I~\I(4).,QF~
LEASE-CUM–SALE AGFtEEMENT_ AP-PE'NDED_~11.TO' 'THE
KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL'. "=.F'ROD-UCE '..,MA'RI–<ETfINO 'V 0'
(REGULATION OF ALLOTMENT "*PROPER_TY—IN MARKET
YARDS) RULES 2004, AS |RR_AT'iO_t\$A_L; lN".A_PPVEfiCAE3LE,
ARBITRARY AND OPPQ_SED'AV TO, VTTHE KARNATAKA
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. .IMAR_KE)l"iNG.TREGULATION) ACT,
1966 SO FAR PETITIONER ARE COi'»iCER_.E\.{ED}f.ETC.
THIS wRIT.IéET_:T:OI\I "FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE E_OLLOIA.I;I\IO:'w'
IIII _ ftjA. ,I;GH5ERtR,
In this writ 'peft'i'§:O'.'3_,RAtheA"p§§ti't5OI1.er has prayed for a writ in the
nature of certi'O_r_ari .toTq.ua'S.h" forfeiture orders dated 27.06.2008
.__tSSUed,'VRBSpOnde'R.T'NO.3IaS per Annexure A A Canceling the Site
V"v.va;t¢fiedE':irI faxrouzjof the petitioner and forfeiting the Site! value paid by
the pe't.ition"er«."_~v…_
2. ~. A ‘Since the petitioner has failed to put up construction on
Aisitet-..’atEotted to him in terms of the conditions of allotment,
“respondents have now issued the forfeiture orders. in identical
Wrtptattiers this court in W.P.NoS.’i4302*3{}6/2009 disposed of on
:f}’~>”‘”
3 W. P. 328:-§(i/(39
10.6.2009 set aside the canceiiation of site and granted o_ne:yeia:_’s
time for the petitioner to put up construction in compiiarioewit-hi _
conditions of aiiotment.
3. in terms of the order in
connected matters, this writ petitioh iséaiixowed’; r”__fiiVeVVf1qrvfe’it.;;,ire’ orders 0′ 0
dated 27.06.2008 issued by i3espond_erit”No;8_yas oer’A.n_hexure — A is
hereby quashed. Petitioher”‘i.s”:,’oheifyear?sV time to put up
construction. it the oohstrugttiorriisy one year, the
forfeiture orders :;stahuds”‘V–revived. Ordered
accordingiy. . n i in 0 V
oe’rhii_tted_’toVi’fiie memo of appearance
for R1 a R2 viii’thir1’four
Sri.H.K.Thiirri’megorvQdaA’isAioermitted to file vakalath for R3
yiriithvin four:Cvve.eks from toda’y’;” ”
sa/-r
woes
V 0 di*._*
