IN THE HIGH coma': OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF AUGUST 5'-Q: .
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AB3£§¥JL-naxiazfifin « - T
WRIT PETITION NO.£E5é3.6O/20{APP«i:C3JVV~ ' "
BETWEEN:
Sri. Nanjundeswara T'rad_if;g Ccf.
By its Partner ' --. '--
P.S. Nanjundaswamy
S/0. Nanjundappri' V
Aged about 44 ye-ci1~..$_T _
Commission .Agentf _ '
R.M.C. yardi .
Chitradurga 57?'n5eg ; _ V '- PETITIONER
[By Sri. «.
AND: _ ' "
_ :51-133. 'State of Karnataka
_ By}t s Secretary
- " 'vDept;ns)fvAg17icu1ture and
" . Market, Building
' . "'BangalQrE' --- 560 001
' . 'Director
n T Department 0fAgricuItura1 Marketing
» Bhavan Road
" Bangalore --- 560 001
3. The Secretary
A.P.M.C.
Chitradurga 577 502 _
(By Srnt. M.C. Nagashree, HCGP, for R-1 and a»2..'f C
Srnt. Anuparna I-Iegde, Adv. for R3} --- ~
I1¢=i==iHi==l=
This writ petition is filed 'iinder Artistes. of
the Constitution of India prayingutovquash' .t_heanoti(;e dated
24/26.11.2008 issued by_R*3 ang<_:I___e:t::,_ _ 9
This petition coming.i"onC-.fo15jPréiiminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:'é
"""
to take notice for R1 and
R-2. Snit. ixnnpania learned Counsel, is directed to
* take for R-3.' A ..... H v
' _ "*'I:?ne' petitioner was aflotted a site bearing No.O~1O
yard and a lease cum sale agreement
as Ani1e§:t1re~A dated 5.12.1997 was executed in its
C."~'««_'_VfaVAour. C' per the said agreement, the petitioner ought to
K.
I
have to put up construction on the said site within
of one year. Since the petitioner failed _
construction as above, respondent No.3 has_-i~sst1e'd, a'~.notiCe_"
dated 24/26.11.2008 as per Annex1ire~C.tfoffeiting’ the I
question. The petitioner has Vc’ha.11enigied”‘the zofijgthe
said notice dated 24/26.11.200’EV’3ui”as’ per in this
writ petition. .. . M I it it
3. I have heard the 1eVa,rne’d_o’o:unse1_ vforthe parties.
4:.’tVLééfn§§d_V c6?iéi1é1″f§1′ thfiiietitioner submits that the
petitionercould ..construction on the said site in
accordance With’ the termsand conditions of the lease cum
..e$a1ev.’:pagreernent d1tte”*t–G« the reasons beyond its control. He ‘
that the petitioner will put up construction
on the said’.Vsi_te§in accordance with the terms and conditions
Wyof the tease cum sale agreement within a period of one year.
‘K
2
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is just and reasonable. In identical matters,”-.this
Court has granted an year’s time to the petitioners§’_:therein__fie _
put up construction on the sites allotted by/”u
accordance with the terms and conditionslofithe. lease
saie agreement. The petitioner=is.___a1so lentiitled fo’r’l’ti1.e_Vsirr_r§ilar ;
order.
6. In the result, thetlwxitp slucceeds and it is
accordingly allowed, Th€t”IIUfiCE’. dated: 1.2008 as per
Annexuiresbv is petitioner is granted
one yeaitifrorn construction on the site in
question in l’acc’or.da-nce_ the terms and conditions at
” «–lease_jcumV:saIe agreement at Annexure~–A failing which liberty
is respondents to take appropriate action
against the ‘petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.
it
v
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents
permitted to file their memo of appearance/vakalath, jj 1-
case may be, within a period of eight weeks fgjom today; » if. V.
Cs