Loading...

Sri Waris Islam vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Waris Islam vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
 _ AND; " 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE s.WABDUL~NA;'zjEfi:}i 4- _  "

WRIT PETITION No.4073:i;V/20-1?)  4'    T

BETWEEN:

Sri. Waris Islam  . 
S / 0 Mohammad Islam Aylibi 
Aged about 43 years ' ll 
C/0. P. Muniswamappa
Beglihosahalli Viliagfi _ " _  ' 
Kasaba Hobii      "    
K01arTaluk     " l V"   »

Kolar Djssfi9létsA.::5._V     PETITIONER

[By s1-1.s';K. lJayarar1l1;_1;V_llAd_§;}.:l 

 1'.  lSfaté.ofAK~arnataka

" _ "Rep«.._by its Secretary
._   of Co--ope'-sration
'  Mull: St-Dried Building
""Ba:agal3°re ~ 560 001

H H u    n ;  Diréstor of Marketing

_ 1530.16, 2"' Rajbhavan Road
 'Bangalore 560 001



3. The Secretary
Agricultural Produce Marketing

Committee, Kolar  REsPoNDE1§ni;str._V_

[By Smt. M.C. Nagashree, HCGP, for R-1 and R42,  '  if '

Sri. H.K. Thimmegowda, Adv. for R3]

***=i¢=i¢

This writ petition is fiiedunder Ariicies 22'6";md,_V22:? of  *

the Constitution of India praying'V--eto quash'V..t1_V*;_e 'forfeiture
order dt.22.7.2009 vide Ann~a by R43 and etc'.  _ 

This petition comirrgfeon for  day. the Court

made the followingr 

Leiarnedn [to take notice for R-1 and
R-2. Sri.  Thi1nni'egoi2i}d.a',"Iearned Counsel, is directed to

take notice for " 

'  2. -,Ti1e'.peti.tioner was allotted a site bearing No.77 at

Ko£ar"--APMC'V."yard and a lease cum sale agreement as per

* Annezrdureivli dated 4.12.2006 was executed in his favour. As

 "gar the said agreement, the petitioner ought to have to put

.ff'u§$'--construction on the said site within a period of one year.

K»

-.



Since the petitioner failed to put up construction as_abov_e,

respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 22.07.2009  _

Annexure–A forfeiting the site in question. The –petition:er«.has is

challenged the validity of the said

per Annexure–A in this writ peti’tion.

3. I have heard the leamedlvilciouiasel for vparties.

4. Learned cousnel._._i:’cr_Atlie that the
petitioner could not said site in

accordance titre” tcrriis land C4Ond’itio’ns of the lease cum

sale agreerneiitlfiduue”go thetreasolnslVbeyond his control. He
further submits thatifthle’.pe’titi–oner will put up construction

on the said site i11.a’c.co1idance with the terms and conditions

.. 4, of thellease cum sales’-agreement within a period of one year.

‘vtstibmission of the learned counsel for the

petitionerv.i.sljt_1st and reasonable. In identical matters, this

. ‘Court hasgranted an year’s time to the petitioners therein to

construction on the sites allotted by the APMC in

\

accordance with the terms and conditions of the 1ease___cum
sale agreement. The petitioner is also entitled for the V~s;iin_iiar

order.

6. In the result, the writ
accordingly ailowed. The
Anr1exure~A is hereby quashed; bpetit2o..ner._iVs_”granted’done
year from today to pivitttup ‘or1″*the’v§ site in
question in accordance conditions at
lease cum sale which Iiberty
is reserved utoiffv”t.a]¢:eWappropriate action

against the Vpetitionerdv 1’.1’iv- accordance with law. No costs.

7. V’ _Learried_d Co.ur1seV1A”‘” for the respondents are
p’ermittevdj””to their dinemov of appearance / vakalath, as the

caseynio,y”oe§’aperiod of eight Weeks from today.

Self’
313965

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information