IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.260 OF 2017 (APMC) BETWEEN THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE SHIMOGA-577 204. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. L.PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. M/S. SRI. VENKATRAM AND COMPANY, COMMISSION AGENTS, NO.P-3, APMC YARD, SHIMOGA-577 204.
BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. DEVARAM PRASAD, SON OF P.VENKATARAMAN, 43 YEARS.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, MULTISTORYED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.R. SATHENAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1.
SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.40225/2014 DATED 15/11/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.40225 of 2014 (APMC), by which the petition was disposed off with certain observations, the 3rd respondent - Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (for short ‘the APMC’) therein is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 04.11.2008 bearing No.APMC/S/1614/2008-09 vide Annexure-B and for a mandamus to the respondents to grant extension of time to construct shop-cum-godown. The petitioner claims that he is a license holder under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation & Development) Act, 1966, (for short ‘the Act’) for trading agricultural produce. The petitioner was allotted with site No.P-3 measuring 50 x 100 feet on 07.03.2002 under lease-cum-sale agreement on certain terms and conditions. One of the condition was that within one year building shall be constructed on getting the plan approved. It is stated that due to undeveloped conditions and financial crunch, traders including the petitioner could not comply the condition of constructing the building within the stipulated period. The 3rd respondent – APMC by resolution dated 29.08.2008 resolved to forfeit the site allotted to the petitioner. It is stated that this Court in Writ Petition Nos.60947-949 of 2010 gave a general direction to the 1st respondent - Government to grant time for construction wherever forfeiture orders were passed. Accordingly, State Government issued circular dated 25.05.2011. It is stated that even though petitioner’s site has been cancelled, the same has not been allotted to any other person. Since the 3rd respondent - APMC failed to consider his request, he filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge considering the writ petition and relying upon a decision of this Court in similar circumstances, in writ petition Nos.110800-110802 of 2015 disposed off the present writ petition on 07.01.2016 with the following terms and conditions :-
“9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with following terms and conditions.
(i) The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent at Annexure’B’ is kept in abeyance for a period of nine months from today.
(ii) The petitioner shall make an application for the sanction of the plan for putting up construction on the site allotted within a period of five weeks from today.
(iii) The 3rd respondent APMC shall consider anticipated application on the plan sanctioned within five weeks in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioners shall put up shop-cum- godown within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the sanctioned plan.
(v) If the petitioner defaults in adhering to the time schedule stipulated herein above, the impugned Order of forfeiture shall stand automatically revived.”
Aggrieved by the disposal of the instant writ petition with the above terms and conditions, the 3rd respondent is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant – APMC would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has failed to construct the building within the stipulated time and admittedly he is a defaulter. The petitioner has failed to construct the building even after several years and as such he is not entitled for the relief sought for. It is contended that the petitioner has no legal right to claim extension of time for construction of the building. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly extended the time for construction of the building, which needs no interference. He further pleads that similarly placed persons like the petitioner are granted relief by this Court and as such the petitioner is also entitled for the relief sought for.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the appeal papers, we are of the view, that the learned Single Judge in his discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India extended time for construction of the building by nine months and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same needs no interference. The petitioner was allotted the site measuring 50 x 100 feet on 07.03.2002 under lease-cum- sale agreement and one of the condition of lease was that the petitioner shall construct the building in the allotted site within one year. Due to undeveloped condition in market yard and due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, he states that he could not construct the building within the stipulated period. The appellant had resolved to cancel vide Annexure-A, sites allotted to 11 persons including the petitioner. Except the petitioner other 10 persons had approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3447 – 3457 of 2009 (APMC). This Court by order dated 17.04.2009 has allowed the petition and quashed the forfeiture orders and had remitted the matter to the appellant – APMC. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.110800-110802 of 2015 disposed off on 07.01.2016 wherein the petitioners therein were permitted to construct the shop-cum-godown within a reasonable time, has disposed off the instant writ petition granting time to the petitioner to construct the shop-cum-godown. There is no perversity or erroneousness in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order passed is an equitable order. No ground is made out by the appellant to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2017 filed for stay does not survive for consideration, the application is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms