WP NOs.64903~914 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST
BEFORE ' A A
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE;"AJIT J;G"§if1§Imf}§I.'-- _ V': "
WRIT PETITION NOs.6-4903-16149 14 /T12OA0ég.(AOPi\/:::g;,.A
BETWEEN: A A A A A A
1. Sri Veerabhadreshwara Ind1istri'e.$,
By its Prop: Sharanagjpa, A
S/O Ayyappa Sureban} ' '-
Age: 58 years. "
2. Shanthi' Agén_¢ies,. " f
By its PrOpE"».Ié's*¢\:antr,aj,_V" "
S/O Bhavar1al_Jai1h; _ "
Age: 4' A
3. J.K.Tr'a;1eArs,, O A
By its Propf' Jaikumzar, '
S /O-iKaui11arayya~ AV1_f_1_1;éiy,.
* Age: Bifiyevars.
Jwatraj
]53.Ohra, ?3y7jij_t.sf'PrOp: Couthamchand,
S/"Q Manickichand Zangda,
Age; 50}/"ears.
A '~?_" Rajashree Trading Company,
By its prop: Rasheed Ahammed,
123/ O Rajesab Hanajageri,
-*-'Age: 40 years.
6. Shree Raghavendra Traders,
By its Prop: Susheelabai,
W /o Shivabasayya Kochalapurmath,
Age: 60 years.
7. Mahendra Trading Company,
By its Prop: Mahendrakumar,
S/o I-Iirechand Jain,
Age: 42 years.
8. Sri Manjunath Trading Conip.:_ainy3
By its Prop: Devaraj,
S / o Veeranagouda Hos__a3mar1_i, 3. . ~ V
Age: 35 years.
9. Sri. Sharanabasaveishwaija
Trading Compiariy; _ _ V
By its Prop; 'Sharaiiappag-«-._V _ _
S/0 Channappa ;i_\/£utta1,. ..
Age: 42v3'8--3I'VSV.":.
10. Sri SanthoShVTrjaders;
General m'erCh,antS " T"
Commission Agents,
By Prop: Shivasharanappa,
A" 'V V' S/0' vsGu'rIdappa Hosangadi,
_v50_ years __
ii 1 A'oi.d'V..Traders,
By its Propz" Saleem Abid,
. S/0 KashimsabTalka1,
"~.~e.___"Age: 35.years.
- Deepchand
-- Rathanchand 85 Sons,
Qriound nut and cotton Merchants,
WP Nos.64903-914 of 2009
WP Nos.64903--914 of 2009
By its Partner: Shanthilal,
S/o Deepchand Jain,
Age: 60 years,
A11 are Businessmen,
All R/o Kuknoor, _
Tq: Yelburga, Dt: Koppel. '
(By Sri. P.G.Moga1i, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Director of 3. 1' v
No. 16, 2116 Raj BhaVah_._Roadf;
Bangalore--1.__ _
2. The Agric1i,_1tu;iai_VProd1.i§:e B'
MarketirigCoirriniitteoe,
Yelburga-,3 R1,/«:.~; VKu1;anooBfr ,. A V;
Tq: Ye'1"t3u.If§;:a, Ut:'-Kopppal, 'B
By S__ecret'.:3.1{,_3_zL'.y ...RESPONDENTS
{By Smt. K.Vidya\rath_i; fies? for R1
Shri. Ma11.ii<arriju;C.Basareddy, Adv., for R2)
. vhvpetitions are filed under Articles 226 and
22'7"=of the.j'j_C-onstitution of India praying to quash the
orde.r/resolution No.4 passed by respondent No.2 dated
07.08.2609 vide Anr1exure–C insofar as it relates to the
A .V'"p.etitior1ers; direct the respondent No.2 to execute the
_ fifregistyered leasewcum-saie deeds in respect of the sites
i ailotted to the petitioners within a stipulated time; and
" etc.
WP N0s.64903–914 of 2009
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following: '
Snm. ixxndyavaun, ke}a§dai\}fignhe,¢aarr
Government Pleader, accepts
No.1. Shri. Ma£1ikarjun.C.Basa1;e-ddy, copnsel, is
directed to take
Even are listed for
pre1irnina1";§,r"V1ri§fVp3j'*«1,:ri:"i\;-'1g__ the same is taken up
tmm@&w®aTth'
2. Iéienticai have been disposed of wherein
the»»’1iprfeifure .’1’iOti.(;_e__pis the subject matter of a batch of
V”. 2 ‘ writ. pevtitiolnsf V .. _
Agrievance of the petitioners is that without
.’4″‘-dgiving “si.1fficient time notice has been issued. It is
Cori:-ended by the learned counsel appearing for the 21″”-‘1
“I
WP Nos.64903-914 of 2009
: 5 :
respondent that in these cases, the APMC has not
executed the necessary lease-cum–sale deed agreerrients.
4. If it is so, I am of the View that the
issuing forfeiture notice would not of
same is liable to be quashed.
after the intimation of allotment,'”‘res’ponc’.entg
not executed the 1ease–curriV;’sa1:e.vVdeed*iagreernents in
favour of the petitio;:I7.1_;é?.’sA. reasons are
sought to be attributed, sale deed
agreements. _e.:;eicu:ted,ii’inevertheless, without
resorting 1ease–cum–sale deeds,
forfeiturenotice could” have been issued.
if ‘Leéarned counsel for the petitioners submits that
I bpefissued to the 2nd respondent to execute
necessaryilease–cum–sale deeds if they are not already
executed. Indeed, such an exercise is required to be
i ‘diozieii by respondent No.2 on the petitioners’ furnishing
necessary details as well as depositing the requisite
‘
WP N0s.6-4903-914 of 2009
amount required to execute necessary 1ease–curI_1.:_saEe
deed agreements. Hence the following order is
(1’) Petition stands disposed of.
notice is set aside. ” V
(ii) The second respondent sPLq;II”exe(rate.. dd
lease–cum~sale deeci%.V:VV:i’72 favouf
petitioners s–1gbject..t””‘td_:’– ‘sa.t.isfytiiig*-A the
allotment Rule§_:7s, ” ”
Governrnent Pleader, is
permitted to appearance within four weeks.
Shri Ma11i§{afjun.;”CBssdereddy, learned counsel, is
d ‘peratnaitfed t’e..’fi1e pdfisieér within four weeks.
se,/w
juDGE
‘ K1;:s*