Disposed

M/S. C.G. Bellad and Sons v. the Director

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2024WP/108774/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allottee challenged forfeiture of an APMC yard site imposed for failure to build within two years. Following a similar earlier writ petition's approach, the court kept forfeiture in abeyance for nine months on condition of timely plan approval and construction completion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned forfeiture order kept in abeyance for nine months conditioned on building plan approval and completion of construction; automatic revival if not complied with.

M/S. C.G. Bellad and Sons Vs the Director — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6216 WP No. 108774 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 108774 OF 2014 (APMC-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S. C.G. BELLAD AND SONS, BY ITS PARTNER, SRI SADASHIVAPPA CHANNABASAPPA BELLAD, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AKKIALUR, TALUK: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH & SRI MADHUKESHWAR DESHAPANDE, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE MARKETING, RAJABHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶11

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.04.08 15:03:38 +0530

¶12

THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1; SRI B. ANANDSHETTY, ADV. FOR R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING APMC (H)/SITE/597600/2008-09 DATED 1/02.07.2008 OF FORFEITURE OF THE SITE BEARING NO.1 COMPRISED IN R.S.NO.326/1B, 326/1B1, 326/1B, 326/2B, 326/1B2, 326/1B4, 326/1B, 326/2B MEASURING 6458.40 SQUARE FEET OF HALEKOTI VILLAGE OF HANAGAL TALUK APMC YARD, HANAGAL VIDE ANNEXURE-C BE QUASHED AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6216 WP No. 108774 of 2014

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking for following relief:

¶21

a) The impugned order passed by the Respondent no.2 bearing APMC (H)/site/597-600/2008-09 dated 1/02.07.2008 of forfeiture of the site bearing no.1 comprised in R.S.no.326/1B, 326/1B1, 326/1B, 326/2B, 326/1B2, 326/1B4, 326/1B, 326/2B measuring 6458.40 square feet of Halekoti village of Hanagal taluk APMC yard, Hanagal vide Annexure-C be quashed by issue of writ of certiorari in the interest of justice and equity.

¶22

b) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed the Respondent No.2 to reconsider the representation of the writ Petitioner dated 1409-2012 vide at Annexure-D which has been made for seeking permission to construct the building and to accord the permission for construct of the building by issuing writ of mandamus in the interest of justice and equity.

¶23

In pursuance of order dated 12.03.2024 petitioner has filed affidavit undertaking to complete construction within 12 months from date of sanction of plan by APMC, Hanagal.

¶24

Sri S.K. Kayakmath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was allotted site no.1 in APMC yard, Hanagal as per Annexure-A. Subsequently, on 22.08.2022, a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed. It was submitted, terms of said agreement required allotee to construct building

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6216 WP No. 108774 of 2014

¶26

within two years, but, on account of financial constraints, petitioner was unable to put up construction. On 19.06.2008, respondent no.2 passed resolution to cancel allotment in favour of petitioner. Consequently, impugned order at Annexure-C was passed on 1/2.07.2008. Aggrieved thereby petitioner was before this Court.

¶27

It was submitted under similar circumstances against order of forfeiture of allotted sites, other allottees had filed W.P.no.31098/2008, wherein this Court by order dated 18.02.2009, issued direction for keeping order of forfeiture in abeyance for a period of 9 months to enable petitioner/allottees to complete construction within said period. Since petitioner was similarly placed, similar order was prayed for.

¶28

On other hand, Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned AGA for respondent no.1 and Sri B. Anand Shetty, learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to oppose writ petition. Referring to statement of objections, it was submitted, there was significant delay in putting up construction and hence there was no merit in writ petition. It was submitted, there was no attempt by petitioner for seeking interim order and putting up

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6216 WP No. 108774 of 2014

¶30

construction during pendency of this writ petition. Hence, sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶31

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶32

record.

¶33

From above, it is seen that petitioner, an allottee of APMC site is challenging order of cancellation of allotment. Admittedly, cancellation is on ground of failure by petitioner to put up construction within a period of two years, as required. Condition to put up construction within two years is not in dispute. But, this Court in W.P.no.31098/2008 under similar circumstances had held forfeiture without opportunity as illegal and directed for keeping forfeiture in abeyance for a period of 9 months to enable petitioner to put up construction within said time and in case of completion of construction, for withdrawal of order. Petitioner is in similar position. It is seen, allotment was in year 2002 i.e., 22 years ago. Therefore relief cannot be granted to petitioner without terms.

¶34

Hence, following order passed in W.P.no.31098/2008, Writ petition is disposed of by keeping impugned order of cancellation of allotment Annexure-C dated 01/02.07.2008, in

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6216 WP No. 108774 of 2014

¶36

abeyance for a period of nine months from date of approval of building plan by respondent. And directing petitioner to file application for approval of building plan within period of two weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

It is made clear that in case of failure to submit building

¶38

plan for approval within two weeks and putting up construction within nine months as above, order of forfeiture dated 01/02.07.2008 at Annexure-C would automatically revive.

¶39

And in case of compliance, order of

¶40

cancellation/forfeiture, would stand discharged.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

PSG:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

M/S. C.G. Bellad and Sons v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. C.G. Bellad and Sons v. the Director

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

Nizamuddin S/O Moinuddin Shaikh Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Abdul Rasool Mohammed Ibrahim Dharwadkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Umesh S/O Hanamanth Murgod Vs Smt Maheshwari Alias Sawata W/O Umesh Murgod

Shri. Maruti S/O Babu Hundre Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashok Hanumanthappa Vannal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Parashuram Vs Shri. Raju S/O Murarsametrani