IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.55481/2014 (APMC) BETWEEN SRI. MUJAHID SHA FRUITS COMPANY C/O CHAND MOHSEEN & COMPANY REPRESENTED BY MUJAHID, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, FRUIT COMMISSION AGENT C-12, SEEGENA AGRAHARA SUB-MARKETING COMPLEX, BANGALORE-100. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE SECRETARY FRUITS AND VAGETABLES (SPECIAL) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, AGRAHARA TANKBAND ROAD, BINNYPET, BANGALORE-23. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C.KAVITA, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2, SRI. T.SWAROOP, ADV. FOR R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.29.4.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED PASSED IN APPEAL NO.2 OF 2013 VIDE ANNEX-D ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. The dispute lies in a narrow compass, in that the petitioner who was allotted a site by the third respondent failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition is that the petitioner was allotted a vacant site bearing No.GO 5 vide order dated 13.8.2010 in No.APMC/601/Abhike-2/2008 with the prior approval of the second respondent dated 12.7.2010. The allotment was in consonance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations of Allotment of Property in the Market Yard) Rules, 2004. That pursuant to the allotment the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,17,620/-. That the petitioner was called upon to deposit a balance sum of Rs.4,51,980/- within 90 days. It is submitted that the petitioner could not mobilize the balance sum within the stipulated date. Thereafter he was put on notice and thereafter he was called upon to pay the same within a period of 60 days with 12% interest.
It is submitted that due to intervening circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the sum within the said period. That the petitioner voluntarily mobilized the funds and got the demand draft drawn in favour of the third respondent and attempted to deposit the said sum, but the third respondent refused to receive the same on instructions from the second respondent. Thereafter the third respondent proceeded to issue the order dated 4.1.2013 whereby the order of allotment came to be revoked and the allotment stood cancelled.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the first respondent. The first respondent by order dated 29.4.2014 was pleased to reject the appeal bearing No.2/2013. Aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Upon an enquiry the learned counsel for the third respondent would fairly submit that the said site has not been allotted to anybody else and no third party right is created over the site nor has the third respondent initiated any developmental activities over the said site and it continues to remain vacant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents also fairly admit that the petitioner continues to hold the licence under the said Act and is actively carrying on business in the yard.
6. In the light of the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that if some relief is granted to the writ petitioner, the intendment and objective of Act would not be defeated. Further, in view of the fact that the petitioner is a genuine licencee carrying on business on day-to-day basis and if the allotment enure to his benefit, he will in all likelihood continue his business operations in furtherance of the object of the enactment.
7. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer for condoning the delay in payment of the balance sale consideration requires to be considered.
At this juncture the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that in view of the delay occasioned by the petitioner, equity demands that the petitioner be directed to pay the present market value which is fixed at Rs.1,000/- per sq. ft.
In this regard the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has filed a memo of calculation dated 11.10.2017 whereby the present market value calculated at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per sq. ft. works out to Rs.11,60,000/- and in view of the payment of Rs.2,17,620/-, the remaining sum required to be deposited by the petitioner works out to Rs.8,98,380/-.
8. Accordingly, this Court exercising the extraordinary power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution, pass the following :-
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned orders at Annexures C & D stand quashed;
The delay in payment of the balance sale consideration is condoned and the respondent No.3 is directed to receive the balance sale consideration.
The petitioner shall deposit the sum of Rs.8,98,380/- within two months from today and thereafter the respondents 2 and 3 shall ensure execution of the lease/sale agreement in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shall get the plan approved and put up construction within one year thereafter. In the event of the petitioner failing to put up construction within the stipulated period, the respondents shall initiate action for canceling the lease/sale agreement and forfeit the amount.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE rs