Allowed¶52

Shri. Vikram Kallappa Bachikar v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2025WP/107399/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APMC Belagavi confiscation of Plot/Site No. I-13; sale under 1982 APMC resolution; registered sale deed 16.04.1982; Director's approval of resolution not communicated; licence transmitted to mother after 1987 death; licence fee receipt 15.07.2011 for 2011-12 to 2019-20; belated confiscation impermissible; follows M/s L.O. Bamane & Sons, W.P. No. 100037/2017; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde; decided 10-11-2025; NC: 2025:KHC-D:15342.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 23.12.2016 (Annexure-H) confiscating the petitioners' property bearing Plot/Site No. I-13 along with the associated notices; writ petition allowed. ¶52

Shri. Vikram Kallappa Bachikar Vs the Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the order dated 23.12.2016 (Annexure-H) confiscating the petitioners' property bearing Plot/Site No. I-13 along with the associated notices; writ petition allowed.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.12.2016 of the respondent-APMC confiscating the petitioners' property (Plot/Site No. I-13) could be sustained when the 1982 resolution permitting the sale was allegedly not approved by the Director of APMC and such non-approval was never communicated to the purchasers. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The confiscation could not be sustained: the 1982 sale proceeded under an APMC resolution, the sale deed was duly registered, the vendor had title, the APMC itself granted the licence, and the Director's non-approval of the resolution was never communicated to the purchasers.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Action for violation of the Rules requiring the Director's approval ought to have been initiated when the transfer took place in 1982; consistent with the Co-ordinate Bench in M/s L.O. Bamane & Sons, property cannot be confiscated in a belated action where no step was earlier taken for the alleged violation of APMC transfer rules.

¶46

Key takeaways

Under these circumstances, the impugned order and the notices are quashed, and the writ petition is allowed.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.), W.P. No. 107399 of 2017 (APMC), decided 10.11.2025: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution allowed; the order dated 23.12.2016 in No.UMS(B)/1726/2016-17 (Annexure-H) of the Secretary, APMC Belagavi confiscating the petitioners' Plot/Site No. I-13, and the preceding notices, quashed. The property was purchased in 1982 pursuant to an APMC resolution permitting the sale; the sale deed was registered, the vendor had title, the APMC itself granted the licence (transmitted to the petitioners' mother after the father's death in 1987) and collected licence fees (receipt dated 15.07.2011 for 2011-12 to 2019-20); the Director's alleged non-approval of the resolution was never communicated to the purchasers. Following the Co-ordinate Bench in M/s L.O. Bamane & Sons v. The Director, APMC (W.P. No. 100037/2017), the Court held that where no action is taken for alleged violation of APMC rules on transfer of property, the property cannot be confiscated in a belated action; any action for want of the Director's approval should have been initiated in 1982 itself. The respondent filed no statement of objections.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15342 WP No. 107399 of 2017

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 107399 OF 2017 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. VIKRAM KALLAPPA BACHIKAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELAGUNDI, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

AMIT S/O KALLAPPA BACHIKAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELAGUNDI, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

TEJSHWINI W/O RAJKUMAR YADAV, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: THANE, MUMBAI.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, BELAGAVI.

¶16

… RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BE ISSUED AND THEREBY THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2016 IN NO.UMS(B)/1726/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT ATTACHING THE PROPERTY BEARING PLOT NO.I-13 OF THE PETITIONERS BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15342 WP No. 107399 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶25

The petitioners have assailed the order dated 23.12.2016 passed by respondent – Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (for short, ‘APMC’) confiscating petitioners’ property bearing Site No.I-13.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that their father purchased the property pursuant to the resolution passed by respondent - APMC under registered sale dated 16.04.1982. After the purchase, the petitioners’ father carried on the business in the premises under the licence from APMC. Petitioners’ father died in the year 1987 and after his demise the licence is transmitted in the name of petitioners’ mother.

¶27

The Annexure-D is the receipt dated 15.07.2011 where it is stated that the licence fee is collected for the year 2011-12 to 2019-20. The petitioners’ father died in the year 1987. Said document is not in dispute.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15342 WP No. 107399 of 2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Alleging that the resolution passed by the respondent- APMC permitting the sale of the property by previous holder in favour of petitioners’ father is not approved by the Director of APMC, a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioners as to why the property should not be confiscated. It appears that the petitioners have not replied to the show-cause notice and later in terms of the impugned order at Annexure-H, the property is confiscated.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the resolution passed by respondent – APMC permitting the sale is to be approved by Director of AMPC and said approval is required to be obtained by APMC and not by the purchaser. It is urged that whether the approval is granted or not is not communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners’ father purchased the property in the year 1982. So far the sale deed is not cancelled. The petitioners’ father did his business in the petition premises and after his death in the year 1987, the petitioners continued to do the business. The respondent/APMC has collected the necessary licence fees. Thus, it is urged that the impugned orders could not have been passed.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15342 WP No. 107399 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the issue raised in the present petition is covered in terms of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s

¶36

L.O.Bamane & Sons v. The Director, APMC and another¹ .

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent-APMC would submit that under the provisions of law applicable to the property in the APMC yard, the resolution passed by APMC proposing sale of the property is required to be approved by the Director of APMC and same has not been approved as such, the sale is invalid.

¶38

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the resolution is passed by the APMC, permitting the sale transaction between the petitioners’ father’s vendor and the petitioners’ father. Thereafter, the petitioners’ father did business in the petition premises till his death in 1987 and later the licence is

¶40

1 W.P.No.100037/2017

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15342 WP No. 107399 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

transmitted in the name of petitioners’ mother. The licence fee has been collected till from the petitioners’ mother.

¶44

It is noticed from the order in M/s L.O.Bamane and Sons supra, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that in case no action is taken for alleged violation rules applicable to APMC relating to transfer of property, the property cannot be confiscated in a belated action.

¶45

As already noticed, the properties purchased in the year 1982 and resolution permitting the sale is passed in 1982. It is not communicated to the petitioners’ father that Director has not approved the resolution. The sale deed is registered in accordance with the provisions governing registration. The vendor had the title to the property. The APMC itself granted licence to the purchaser to commence the business.

¶46

In case of violation of the Rules requiring approval by the Director, the action should have been initiated when the transfer took place in the year 1982. On the other hand, the licence has been transferred in the name of the petitioners’

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15342 WP No. 107399 of 2017

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

father and after his death in the year 1987 in the name of petitioners’ mother.

¶51

Till today the petitioners have not informed as to why the Director has not granted the approval for the resolution passed by APMC permitting the sale and the order, if any, rejecting the resolution is also not communicated to the petitioners or the petitioners’ father. The statement of objection is also not filed to the petition.

¶52

Under these circumstances, the impugned order and notices have to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

¶53

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶54

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶55

CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52

Shri. Vikram Kallappa Bachikar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vikram Kallappa Bachikar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of M/S Auma India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manjunath a Uppin

Manjunath a Uppin Vs M/S Auma (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Kumaraswamy S/O Late Rama Bhat, Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Itd Cemindia Jv Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Pattegar Parasuram S/O Late Arjun Sa Pattegar Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangubai Vs the State of Karnataka