Allowed

M/S.M.G.Kalamani and Brothers, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024WP/106870/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a resolution forfeiting an allotted market yard site and a subsequent intimation letter. The petitioner, who held a registered absolute sale deed since 1971, challenged the cancellation on grounds of alleged non-payment of fees and license renewal. The Court noted the petitioner held a valid license and held forfeiture based on non-renewal could not nullify an absolute sale

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned intimation letter dated 05.08.2018, approval of cancellation of allotted site dated 15.06.2018, and resolution No.15 dated 02.07.2017.

M/S.M.G.Kalamani and Brothers, Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9477 WP No. 106870 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 106870 OF 2019 (APMC-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S. M.G. KALAMANI & BROTHERS, R-18, MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. MOTICHAND S/O. GANGADHAR KALAMANI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 663, RAVIVAR PETH, BELAGAVI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

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

¶14

JOINT DIRECTOR (PLANNING) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.12, 2^ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI-590010, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9477 WP No. 106870 of 2019

¶18

APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI-590010, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI-590010, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI. B. ANAND SHETTY, ADV. FOR R4; R5 & R6 SERVED)

¶22

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 QUASHING THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 05.08.2018 BEARING NO. KRAUMASA(BE)/379/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A, THE APPROVAL OF CANCELLATION OF ALLOTTED SITES AS PER THE DECISION DATED 15.06.2018 BEARING NO. KRAMAE/AABHIVI-3/LIKAMSE/87/2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND THE RESOLUTION NO.15 DATED 02.07.2017 OF RESPONDENT NO.4 COMMITTEE PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned intimation letter dated 05.08.2018 issued by respondent No.6 as per Annexure-A and consequent approval of the cancellation of allotted site as per decision dated 15.06.2018 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-

¶26

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9477 WP No. 106870 of 2019

¶27

B and the resolution No.15 dated 02.07.2017 of respondent No.4-committee produced at Annexure-C.

¶28

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶29

Respondent Nos.4 to 6 formed a market yard of Agricultural Produce in R.S.Nos.56, 57, 58 and 59, situated at Kangrali Khurd village in taluka and district Belgaum, within the limits of Belagavi City Municipal Corporation. The petitioner applied for allotment of a site and the respondentAPMC officials allotted a site to the petitioner herein on 04.08.1971. Respondent Nos.5, 6 and member of Respondent No.4 committee has executed a registered sale deed in respect of Plot No.18, out of survey No.59 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,379/-. The sale deed clearly refers to the order of allotment by the Chief Marketing Officer, Bengaluru, dated 20.02.1968.

¶30

The petitioner claims that, he has constructed a structure and is enjoying the plot as an absolute owner. The petitioner obtained necessary license for operating as a trader in the market yard and has also obtained export and

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9477 WP No. 106870 of 2019

¶32

stockist license issued by respondent No.4 which was valid till 31.03.2019. The petitioner has further pleaded in the petition that, on account of death of his son, he could not concentrate on the business and this promoted respondent No.4 to pass resolution No.15 indicating that petitioner has not paid market fee and has not secured renewal of license. On these set of grounds, the respondents have proceeded to pass a resolution forfeiting the allotment of site, placing reliance on Rule 17(3)(v) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yard) Rules, 2004.

¶33

The resolution No.15 dated 02.07.2017 is approved by respondent No.3 on 15.06.2018. Consequently, the site allotted to the petitioner is cancelled. In pursuance to resolution No.15 vide Annexure-C and approval of cancellation of allotted sites issued by respondent No.3, respondent No.6 issued intimation letter calling upon the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession within three days. These orders are under challenge.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9477 WP No. 106870 of 2019

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶36

learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶37

The recitals in the sale deed clearly indicate that,

¶38

there is an absolute sale in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 04.08.1971. The sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioner and his brother. Pursuant to the acquisition of title, the petitioner has put up a structure on the site allotted by respondent No.5. The recitals in the sale deed do not lay any embargo on the manner in which the allottee is required to use the property in question. Even if the petitioner has failed to secure the renewal of license for operating as a trader in the market yard, the respondents by way of forfeiture order cannot nullify an absolute sale deed executed on 04.08.1971. At the most, the respondent-authorities can injunct the petitioner from carrying out trading in the APMC yard. The impugned orders passed by the authorities are also found to be contrary to the records placed by the petitioner on record. One of the reasons to order for forfeiture is on the ground that, the petitioner has not secured renewal of license to

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9477 WP No. 106870 of 2019

¶40

operate as a trader in the APMC yard. However, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the license renewed which was valid up to 31.03.2019. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents officials claim that, this was never furnished when a show-cause notice was issued. Therefore, he would contend that, the authorities were justified in passing the resolution No.15 and consequent cancellation of allotment of site.

¶41

On bare perusal of Annexures-E and F, the petitioner does possess a license to operate as a trader in the yard as per Annexure-E and he has a valid license up to 31.03.2019 as per Annexure-F.

¶42

When these significant details are looked into, the impugned resolution No.15 resolving to forfeit the site on the premises that, there are several breaches committed by the petitioner and consequent cancellation of approved site are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶43

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9477 WP No. 106870 of 2019

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶47

(ii) The intimation letter dated 05.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.6 produced at AnnexureA, the approval of cancellation of allotted sites as per decision dated 15.06.2018 issued by respondent No.3, produced at Annexure-B and resolution No.15 dated 02.07.2017 of respondent No.4-committee produced at Annexure-C, are hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

SVH

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

M/S.M.G.Kalamani and Brothers, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.M.G.Kalamani and Brothers, 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

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

M/S Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Minor B Mukesh S/O Late Babu Lal

Smt. Chandrawwa W/O Annayya Saidapurmath Vs Chandrappa S/O Mallappa Magadum

Sri.Ayubkhan Akbarkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka