Allowed

Taluka Agriculture Produce Market Co. Operative v. the Director of Agricultural Marketing

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024WP/35433/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cooperative society challenged cancellation of its registered sale deed for market yard sites. The court held no condition prohibited transfer, the pre-2004-Rules conveyance could not be cancelled on that ground, and cancellation without hearing was arbitrary; the impugned orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 28.12.2018, 16.2.2019 (Annexures-A, A1) and 26.5.2015 (Annexure-B) quashed; writ petition allowed.

Taluka Agriculture Produce Market Co. Operative Vs the… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14849 WP No. 35433 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 35433 OF 2019 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

TALUKA AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, (TAPCMS) ARASIKERE-573 103, HASSAN DISTRICT BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NO.16, 2ND RAJBHAVAN RAOD, P.B.5309, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, (APMC) ARASIKERE-573 103 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SMT. HEMALATHA V, AGA FOR R1;

¶16

DR. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND COMMUNICATION DATED 20.02.2019 ANNEXURE-A1 PASSED BY THE R-1 DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BENGALURU AND ORDER DATED 26.05.2015 ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE R-2 SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:14849 WP No. 35433 of 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Registered sale deed dated 9.4.1963 was executed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.1 conveying the sites No.78,79,80, 81, 82 in its Market Yard.

¶23

Petitioner asserts that, on conveyance of the subject sites, shops have been constructed and they are carrying on the business of Agricultural Trading as per the regulations of the 1^st respondent Market Committee.

¶24

Given the circumstances, respondent No.1 cancelled the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has violated the condition of the sale deed by mortgaging two of the properties in favour of the 3^rd parties, and two shops have not been utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted for.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no condition in the sale deed that the petitioner shall not mortgage or create 3^rd party rights in respect of the sites conveyed, and therefore, in the absence of any conditions prohibiting the conveyance of the subject properties, the cancellation of the registered sale deed is one without authority of law.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that subject sites were allotted to the petitioner prior to coming into force the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (for short "Rules 2004"). Therefore, the subject sites having been conveyed with a condition that the same shall not be conveyed to the 3^rd parties, the petitioner was prohibited from conveying the subject sites, and contrary to the said condition, the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14849 WP No. 35433 of 2019

¶28

petitioner conveyed the subject sites to the 3^rd parties, and the respondent has rightly forfeited the subject sites.

¶29

He further submits that the Market Committee has no absolute power to convey the subject sites with absolute interest to any Market functionaries. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Venkataram & Co. vs State of Karnataka & Ors, ILR 1998 KAR 1637.

¶30

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Petitioner has annexed a copy of the registered sale deed dated 5.4.1963 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner conveying the subject sites, subject to the conditions laid down in the Indemnity Bond executed by the allottee-petitioner and also subject to the other conditions as may be imposed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, and the byelaws for the time being in force.

¶32

There was no condition imposed in the sale deed that the petitioner shall not convey the subject sites in favour of any persons, and the purpose for allotment of the subject sites is only for the purpose of construction of shops for carrying Agricultural Trading of notified commodities.

¶33

The Marketing Committee has cancelled the registered sale deed and forfeited the subject sites on the ground that the petitioner has violated the conditions of sale by mortgaging two of the properties in favour of the 3^rd parties, and two shops have not been utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted for.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14849 WP No. 35433 of 2019

¶35

The respondent No.2-APMC has not placed on record, the Indemnity Bond alleged to have executed by the petitioner by which the petitioner has under taken not to convey the subject sites in favour of the 3^rd parties.

¶36

The Division Bench's decision relied upon by the respondent No.2 was in context of the regulation Rules, 2004 under which the allottees were required to construct the shops within the time specified though absolute registered sale deed was executed in favour of the allottees therein.

¶37

In the instance, the subject sites were conveyed prior to coming into force the Rules 2004, and there is no provision in the regulation, that the sale deed will be cancelled in the event allottees convey the sites allotted in favour of the 3^rd parties. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 cancelling the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner without providing an opportunity of hearing is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the absence of any condition prohibiting the petitioner in conveying the subject sites in favour of the 3^rd parties, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

ii) The impugned order dated 28.12.2018 and Impugned order dated 16.2.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexures-A and A1

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:14849 WP No. 35433 of 2019

¶42

¶43

and the impugned order dated 26.5.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed.

¶44