Allowed

B Abdul Rashid v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024WP/100663/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commission agent allotted an R-type site under a lease-cum-sale agreement challenged a forfeiture notice alleging delayed construction. The court found construction was completed despite delay and substantial investment was made, quashed the forfeiture notice and directed issue of completion certificate and sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned forfeiture notice dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure-A) quashed; Respondent No.3 directed to issue completion certificate and execute sale deed per Rule 20, levying penalty if any, within eight weeks

B Abdul Rashid Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9386 WP No. 100663 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 100663 OF 2022 (APMC-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

B. ABDUL RASHID, ONION AND PATATO COMMISSION AGENT, SHOP NO.R2, APMC MARKET YARD, AMARGOL, HUBBALLI-580025, REPTD. BY ITS PROPREITOR, ABDUL RASHID BIJAPURI, S/O. MOHAMMED GOUSE BIJAPURI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. G.H. BIJAPURI, HIREPETH, OLD-HUBLI, HUBBALLI-580024.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: High
YASHAVANTNARAYANKAR Court ofKarnataka,Dharwad
Bench
Date:
2024.07.23
16:25:36
+0530

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2^ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AMARGOL MARKET YARD, HUBBALLI-580025, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.N. HATTI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9386 WP No. 100663 of 2022

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.10.2021 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IN FILE NO.KRUMAHI: KRUUMASA(HU);MUGO;721:2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE “A” TO THE WRIT PETITION; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION TO THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO ISSUE CC AND EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN R-TYPE SITE BEARING NO.2 SITUATED AT APMC MARKET YARD AMARGOL HUBBALLI.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner was allotted an R-type site, bearing No. 2, situated at APMC Market Yard, Amargol, Hubballi. This allotment was formalized through a lease-cum-sale agreement executed by Respondent No. 3 on 23.05.2012. Following the execution of the agreement, the petitioner submitted a construction plan to the authorities, seeking permission to erect a building on the allotted site. This plan was subsequently approved by Respondent No. 3 on 26.02.2013, paving the way for the petitioner to commence construction activities.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9386 WP No. 100663 of 2022

¶22

According to the terms of the lease-cum-sale

¶23

agreement, the petitioner was required to complete the construction of an industrial building within a two-year period from the date of the agreement. This stipulation was aimed at ensuring timely development and utilization of the allotted site for its intended purpose, reflecting the commitments of the petitioner under the agreement.

¶24

The petitioner claims to have adhered to these terms by completing the construction within the stipulated timeframe. Despite this, the petitioner received a showcause notice from Respondent No. 3, indicating that the site allotted to the petitioner would be forfeited due to the alleged non-completion of construction as per the conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement. This action by Respondent No. 3 forms the basis of the petitioner's grievance, prompting the present legal challenge.

¶25

The matter was heard, with representations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No. 1, and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner’s counsel argued

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9386 WP No. 100663 of 2022

¶27

that the construction had indeed been completed by

¶28

15.05.2013, in compliance with the lease-cum-sale agreement. To substantiate this claim, the petitioner submitted photographs, documented at Annexure-H,

¶29

showing the completed construction on the site.

¶30

Upon careful consideration of similar cases previously adjudicated by this Court, it is observed that a lenient approach has often been adopted. In analogous cases, this Court has quashed forfeiture notices issued by Respondent No. 3, even where there were minor violations of the lease-cum-sale agreement. The rationale in those cases was that substantial completion of construction warranted a favorable view, leading to the issuance of completion certificates and the execution of sale deeds by the committee.

¶31

In the current case, although there appears to be some delay in completing the construction, the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27.05.2015, along with the photographs at Annexure-H, indicates that the construction was ultimately completed. This suggests that

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9386 WP No. 100663 of 2022

¶33

the petitioner has made significant efforts and investments in developing the site. Therefore, the Court is inclined to adopt a lenient stance, similar to its approach in previous cases, and set aside the forfeiture notice issued by Respondent No. 3.

¶34

Given these considerations, this Court finds that the equities favor the petitioner. The substantial investment made by the petitioner and the completion of the construction, even if delayed, justify setting aside the impugned notice to prevent irreparable loss to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court issues the following order:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶37

(ii) The impugned notice dated 05.10.2021, issued by Respondent No. 3-committee, as per AnnexureA, is hereby quashed.

¶38

(iii) Respondent No. 3-committee is directed to issue a completion certificate and execute the sale

¶39

deed in respect of the R-type site, bearing No. 2, situated at APMC Yard, Amargol, Hubli, in terms of

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9386 WP No. 100663 of 2022

¶41

¶42

Rule 20 of the Rules, by levying any penalty

¶43

specified under the rules.

¶44

(iv) This exercise shall be completed by Respondent

¶45

No. 3 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of

¶46

the certified copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

B Abdul Rashid v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Abdul Rashid v. the State of Karnataka

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.Sulochana B Kamatagi Vs Smt.Shobha Mahesh W/O C.N. Mahesh

Sri.Anand Basavaraj Kamatagi Vs Smt.Jayashree Vijay W/O B. Vijay

Smt.Sulochana B Kamatagi Vs Smt.Shobha Mahesh W/O C.N. Mahesh

Shri Laxmi Narayan Traders Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mallikarjun Cotton Company Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bharati Mobile lLTD., Vs Shri P Venkatramana Shet S/O Late Panduranga Shet