_ 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
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.