IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.50769 OF 2017 (APMC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.50768/2017 (APMC) IN WRIT PETITION NO.50769 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
M/s. Sapthagiri Traders APMC Yard, Batawadi, Tumkur – 572 103, Represented by its Prop: S.Krishnaiah Shetty S/o late Sanjeeva Shetty, 78 years.
(By Sri.B.R.Sathenahalli, Advocate) AND:
…Petitioner 1. The Director of Agricultural Marketing No.16, 2nd Raj Bhavan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee Batawadi, Tumkur – 572 103, Represented by its Secretary.
…Respondents (By Sri.Anandeeswar D.R, HCGP for R.1 and Sri.T.Swaroop, Advocate for R.2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the endorsement of forfeiture issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2 dated 13.10.2017 and etc.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.50768 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
M/s. Gowtham Trading Company APMC Yard, Batawadi, Tumkur – 572 103, Represented by its Proprietrix Smt.S.R.Shashikala D/o Venkatashetty, 50 years.
(By Sri.B.R.Sathenahalli, Advocate) AND:
…Petitioner 1. The Director of Agricultural Marketing No.16, 2nd Raj Bhavan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee Batawadi, Tumkur – 572 103, Represented by its Secretary.
…Respondents (By Sri.Anandeeswar D.R, HCGP for R.1 and Sri.T.Swaroop, Advocate for R.2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the endorsement of forfeiture issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2 dated 13.10.2017 and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent is before this Court laying challenge to the order passed by the 2nd respondent – Market Committee, whereby the 2nd respondent was pleased to cancel the allotment of site No.83-B in WP No.50769/2017 and site No.93-B in WP No.50768/2017 for violation of the condition, mandating, putting up of construction within the stipulated period.
3. The case of the petitioner in WP No.50769/2017 is that he was allotted a site in the APMC Market Yard at Batawadi, Tumkur bearing No. 83-B vide allotment order dated 10.02.1987 and the case of the petitioner in WP No.50768/2017 is that he was allotted a site in the APMC Market Yard at Batawadi, Tumkur bearing No. 93-B vide allotment order dated 24.10.1997. That as the market area was not developed and as there were no basic amenities and facilities it was not possible for the petitioners to develop the sites. That the market committee without any prior notice, much less, show cause notice, issued the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2017 and has further been pleased to cancel the allotment and forfeit the sites.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice and the petitioners having a vested right coupled with the serious civil consequence that follow, it was required for the Committee to grant an opportunity and the petitioners ought to be heard in the matter as is also mandated by the Act.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Market Committee – 2nd respondent would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners have failed to comply with the conditions imposed under the lease cum sale deed and that the breach of conditions warrant the penalty imposed and he would contend in support of the order impugned and would reiterate the findings.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the ruling of this Court rendered in WP Nos.44955-44956 of 2013 disposed of by order dated 24.06.2014. He would contend that the fact remains that no notice, much less, show cause notice has been issued by the respondent – Committee. He contends that no notice is issued by the Committee.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that paper publication came to be issued after the order of forfeiture came to be passed.
8. In that view of the matter, the order impugned warrants interference and stands vitiated as being contrary to the principles of natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem.
9. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would fairly submit that site is not yet allotted to any third party. The fact remains that the property of the 2nd respondent cannot be thrown open for the use of third parties and only persons like the petitioners i.e., registered license holders are permitted the use of the market yard and the sites as the one involved in the case on hand.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the site was allotted to the petitioners at the price of `19/- per sq.ft. and the present market price is `725/- per sq.ft.
11. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have not developed the sites and having failed to comply with the conditions imposed under the lease cum sale deed and also the fact that the sites have not been allotted to any third party despite the order of forfeiture, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served, if the forfeiture order is set- aside, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay the current market value ie., a sum of `725/- per sq.ft., as fixed by the Market Committee.
12. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The order impugned is quashed, subject to the petitioners paying to the Market Committee the sum calculated at the rate of `725/- per sq.ft. While so calculating the amount, the Market Committee shall adjust the amount already deposited by the petitioners with the second respondent at the time of allotment of the site.
13. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to the benefit of order, if no construction is completed within one year of the Market Committee approving the plan. It is also made clear that the complete plan shall be submitted by the petitioners within six months from today.
The writ petitions stand ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH