IN THE HIGH céulrir SF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT Di-EARWAD DATED THIS THE 5?" ww or-= MARCH 2009 BEFORE THE HQRVBLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SH;G¢NTANflgC3VC')L:'fL'?!AR WRIT PETITION NO. 6162"?/2009 (Ap:s&c;«?%L % 1.
AGED«.,S§.YRS. k
“me BENAKATT1 ma: sANC;0PgAmTMATTEL% ‘
UNNEYA UTPADAK SAHAKAR1sANGHVr¢T.- *
BENAKATTI TQ sAuND.A”FT?’L % ‘
DIST: BELGAUM
agaxwsgecaeraay,
sR1.+<ARE'PPfi»%%'* %
SIG uR'U%DRAP¥"?A. HQ;-'<ATT"£,
MPETITIONER
% % gay" éri*.fA jVR"§(OLli;"}§'DVOCATE)
1.fHa=:: DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
” ~..RAJBHA\!AN ROAD,
” – BANGALORE.
4. Sz’i.A.R.Koiii, learned advocate apvps:a_ii’rag
on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
was extended by the committee’ for ‘ ‘
construction, the action taken
iiiegai. He submitted that’bt’i1i:e”‘~~.inacificzh’t:hj’v_th’é锑;3a:9i: of
the petitianer is neitizey inteirit£–a”tg**i.:ai””;mr rnéiafide but is
bsnafide on the facts sad =9:-iifiigjrr:stafig:s_’_.of the cases.
That, if petitviahigiti is¥A_gra.%i:tedAA:”siig.h.tifrhanths time ta
constr1;Jct1tAhév5′.huii”din§,g”he _vi_:9uid be constructing the
i3:..i£iding”i.,_a”s. “:’A’th.4§~.Jjsénctioned pian from the
resgagjridearzt
}~.._,,: wi§it””petition is opposed by Sri Maiiiakijun
V «V C. :E§’asa’i{V.edéiy, iearned ativecate appearing on behalf
it ting’ APMC and the learned Gavemment Advocate by
siihtsnding that no leniency can be shown ts the
“”‘.Wpsetitiener inasmuch as he has vioiated the clause
ii/”‘5
contained in the agreement entered into betvseé£t–<.th.e
petitieners and the APMC and ccnsequentfi/=tt§.§'.é%flé_:'~tA '
reiating to forfeiture Es Iegai and
facts and circumstance 9f the ca"se.:'–._:
6. It is not “iI’lét’iti’-iisvarxer has
not completed the within the
period of o;*:e’:««A;.3;isaar:=A__ oefrét twc: years as
stipuiated it agreement ante red
into regard to the same,
it is thé”:t_.”.Vtifit¥flstitioner does not have the
énterfticn. to4.ai-iei§a’te this property aiiotted to him ta 3″
‘V:part’Eesf”ifALi_r1der such circumstances, it cannot be said
A1f¥T’i3’§Z tf’iE:4:§’If!.%:$tij:§§¥’} of the petitiener in not constructing
V V’ . theiubuiiv§i.n’g””‘was not bonafide. fie does not have any
“3’iiifiéntentisvri to alienate the sites aiietteci to mm ta third
tfisrtiés in whatsoever manner. Having regard to the
Htétaiity and facts and circumstance of the cases, this
i.
if/5
: 5 :
Court is Of the opinion that interest of justice wiii be
met if the petitioner is granted eight months time tr:
construct the buiiding as prayed by him. Accogfiingiy,
the foliswing order is made:
7. The forfeiture o_r.c1e1r/noftiée* §’§i;f.ré?’i:i§hV .
impugned in this writ petition is kéé:pt’i’in’iiab’e§pafi<§§–~fb1r.ia
peried cf nine months fri:;i§fi'~V..t;hisA'€}a.j:ss,.VV'*{hAé;'pet;Eione':*Vi'
shaii make an appvi§–¢:zatirfi.V-fé:%”L_:sé’r3;tion” pian for
the the site aiiotted to him
withi:i%i’«VVa’* pVeri.§r:’iAI.ijjcif”*~fi_Siéi=”weeks from this date. The
re$p–:3{3dej’f1t$_”aiitiiitzrffies APMC shall censider the
.Vépgiiii§é:;ati§§r2«_._fiieci”‘5’¥,} the petitioner for sanctioning pian
Aét-ébrfiaifiaé with law within five weeks thereafter.
The -,:ieit-ivticner shaii ccmstruct the shops an the site
n ai.i_otiiéc§ to him as expedétiausiy as pessibie but not
Hiiiatér than the enter iimit of six months frem the date
H of communication of the sanction’;/gaian. It is made
//I) V
Cr’
D5
dear that if the entire exercise is net ccmpieted within
a perind sf nine menths, the order/notice impggfiefi in
the writ petition reiating to 1’€3r’f’e§§I!§¥:r;é'” ‘{‘fé§é;§¥3éS
automaticaliy and the sites w_Q.ui;$ t>e_«’fe:;’r*i’駒3’;é”c:v:
APMC. It is made dear that ‘this~; ‘ca~z’:déTr. e’n:§is’e§{‘L::.g:”:’::ije
benefit 0? the petitiener
The Writ petitéré’ a.:cLco rdingEy.