- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2597 WP No. 146672 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.146672 OF 2020 (APMC-) BETWEEN: SHAH PARASMAL HASTIMAL SINGHI, A PROPRIETOR FIRM, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. MAHENDRA SINGHI S/O. HASTIMAL SINGHI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PREMISES NO.P182, APMC YARD, HUBBAALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (PLANNING), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, II RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE HUBLI AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, APMC MARKET YARD, HUBLI DHARWAD ROAD, AMARGOL, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI DIST: DHARWAD-580007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. C.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 BRG.NO.KRUMAE/ABHIVI-3/NIMU/330/2019 PASSED BY ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.14 15:23:27 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2597 WP No. 146672 of 2020 THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2020 BRG.NO.KRUMAE/KRUUMASA (HU) / MUGO / 1569 / 2019-20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE - H, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 23.02.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE - E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 03.12.2018 VIDE ANNEXURES - D & D1 OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REVISED PLAN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to Quash the impugned order dated 10.01.2020 brg.no.krumae/abhivi-3/nimu/330/2019 passed by the respondent no.1 vide ANNEXURE-G, in the interest of justice and equity; b) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to Quash the impugned Order dated 19.02.2020 brg.No.KruMae/KruUMasa (Hu) / Mugo / 1569 / 2019-20 passed by the Respondent No.2 vide ANNEXURE - H, in the interest of justice and equity; c) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to Quash the impugned Resolution dated 23.02.2019 passed by Respondent No.2 vide ANNEXURE - E, in the interest of justice and equity; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2597 WP No. 146672 of 2020 d) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the Application dated 03.12.2018 vide ANNEXURES - D & D1 of the Petitioner for granting approval for Revised Plan, in the interest of justice and equity. e) Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The allegations made against the petitioner is that the petitioner had only obtained permission for construction of ground floor as a godown but however, the petitioner has put up a first floor as office without permission from the respondent No.2 and it is in that background that impugned orders dated 10.01.2020, 19.02.2020 and 23.02.2019 at Annexures-G, H & E respectively had been passed directing demolition of the unauthorised portion. 3. Having heard both the counsels and having gone through the papers, it is seen that it is only an additional construction, which had been put up by the petitioner. The said construction in terms of Rule 20 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in market Yards) Rules, 2004 can also be regularised by the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2597 WP No. 146672 of 2020 submitting one more application for plan sanction of the additionally constructed area. Of course, by respondent No.2 levying such penalty and charges as are permissible under law. 4. In that view of the matter, when the construction could be regularised, I am of the considered opinion that there would be no purpose served by demolition thereof. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The impugned orders dated 10.01.2020, 19.02.2020 and 23.02.2019 at Annexures-G, H & E respectively are kept under suspension. iii) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for a modified plan sanction would be submitted within 10 days from now, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the said application for modification of plan sanction within a period of 30 days - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2597 WP No. 146672 of 2020 thereafter and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. iv) Until then, the respondents are restrained from demolishing any portion of the property. In the event of the regularization not capable of being done and or the plan seeking for modification not being in accordance with the building bye laws applicable, the respondents would be free to initiate fresh proceedings for demolition of the portion of the building, which cannot be so regularised. v) If a plan seeking for modification is not submitted within 10 days from today, the demolition order would stand revived. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0