Allowed

G Parshuram S/O Gondbal Manappa v. the Director of Marketing

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2023WP/100458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed impugned communications refusing to execute a lease-cum-sale deed for an APMC shop. The court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to pay balance dues with interest within three months, and the respondents to execute the deed within six weeks of receipt.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication and endorsement quashed. Petitioner directed to pay balance dues with interest within three months. Respondents directed to execute lease-cum-sale deed within six weeks of r

G Parshuram S/O Gondbal Manappa Vs the Director of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100458 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100458 OF 2023 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MALLIKARJUN TRADG Co., REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. G PARSHURAM S/O GONDBAL MANAPPA AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. 603, 19^TH WARD KURUBAR ONI, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGAR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALLIGAWAD.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING NO.16, 2^ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD P.B.NO.5309, BENGALURU

¶14

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING NO.16, 2^ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD P.B.NO.5309, BENGALURU

¶15

THE AGRICUTLRUE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY APMC MARKET, HOSAPETE, TQ:HOSAPETE, DISTRICT – VIJAYANAGARA.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.PRASHANT V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.N.HATTI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 100458 of 2023

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (1) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14/11/2022 BEARING NO.KRUMAE/ AB-4/LIKSE/ 3-9017.2022023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE H. (2) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21/11/2022 BEARING NO.KRUMAS/HO/ NIVESHN/561/ 2022-23 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE J. (3) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO EXECUTE LEASE CUM SALE DEED IN TERMS OF ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 31/01/2019 BEARING NO.KRUMAE/ ABK/-4/ LKS/325/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE B.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned communication dated 14.11.2022 and impugned endorsement dated 21.11.2022 and for other reliefs.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused the material on record.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 100458 of 2023

¶27

The material on record discloses that on 31.01.2019, the 1^st respondent issued an allotment letter in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject shop premises pursuant to which the petitioner deposited 25% of the sital value. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent addressed a communication dated 18.02.2019 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% of the sital value which a period of 90 days. It is contended that the father-in-law of the petitioner was in-charge of the business and on

¶28

account of his demise on 29.01.2020 and due to closure of business, financial difficulties and Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner could not pay the balance sale

¶29

consideration and accordingly, submitted a representation dated 07.10.2022 requesting the respondents to receive the balance sital value and execute the lease-cum-sale deed in his favour. In pursuance of the same, the 3^rd respondent-APMC resolved in its meeting dated 31.10.2022 to place it before the appropriate authority who issued a communication dated 02.11.2022 recommending

¶30

¶31

WP No. 100458 of 2023

¶32

execution of a lease-cum-sale deed in favour of the petitioner by receiving balance sital value together with 12% interest. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the first respondent issued the impugned communication dated 14.11.2022 refusing to accede to the request of the petitioner and directing forfeiture of the subject plot which was communicated to the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent who issued the impugned endorsement dated 21.11.2022, aggrieved by which petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to pay the balance sital value within the stipulated period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. So also, the 1^st respondent clearly committed

¶35

¶36

WP No. 100458 of 2023

¶37

an error in failing to act upon the resolution dated 31.10.2022 of the 3^rd respondent-APMC as well as the communication dated 02.11.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent recommending execution of a lease-cumsale deed in favour of the petitioner by receiving the balance 75% of the sital value together with 12% interest per annum in order to mitigate the loss/hardship caused to the respondents on account of delayed payment by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, adopting a justice oriented approach and to provide one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner to obtain a lease-cum-sale agreement by directing him to pay the balance sital value together with interest at 12% per annum within a stipulated time frame, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsements and communication deserve to be quashed, particularly when the subject site has not been allotted in favour of any one and no third party rights have been created in the same as on date. In the result, I pass the following:

¶38

¶39

WP No. 100458 of 2023

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The petition is allowed.

¶42

ii. The impugned communication at Annexure-H dated 14.11.2022 and impugned endorsement at Annexure-J dated 21.11.2022 are hereby quashed.

¶43

iii. Petitioner is directed to pay the remaining balance 75% of the sital value together with interest at 12% per annum from 01.06.2019 (i.e. 90 days after receipt of communication dated 18.02.2019) till date of payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

iv. Immediately upon receipt of the balance sital value together with interest from the petitioner as stated supra, the concerned respondents shall execute lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of aforesaid payment by the petitioner.

¶45

SD JUDGE

¶46

SRL

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 130

G Parshuram S/O Gondbal Manappa v. the Director of Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Parshuram S/O Gondbal Manappa v. the Director of Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki Vs Smt. Manjula W/O Late Govindarao Padaki

Prateek S. Goudru Vs Union of India

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje Vs the City Corporation Belagavi

Sujitkumar S/O. Malanagouda Patil Vs Kallappa S/O Shivaling Atyal

Smt. Mahadevi W/O Mahadev Tavadar Vs Alagonda Balagonda Patil

K Zahedullah S/O. Ameer Asadullah Vs the Authorised Officer