- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.116888 OF 2019 (APMC-) BETWEEN: SMT. BIBIJAN W/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS, 1. BABUSAB S/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HANSBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 2. TAJUDDIN S/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HANSBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 3. AKBARSAB S/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HANSBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 4. SMT. BADIBU @ SALMA W/O. HARAJSAB TALIKOTI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: HANSBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 5. JAHAR AHAMED S/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HANSBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 6. SMT. MUMTAJ W/O. MOHAMMED ISAMIL UPPIN, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR COURT, HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 7. SMT. KAMARUNNISA W/O. ZAHIRSAB HARLAPUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. AZAD BANK ROAD, GADAG, DISTRICT: GADAG-582101. 8. LIYAKATH S/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HANASBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 9. ILIYAS S/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HANASBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 10. SMT. BASHEERBANU D/O. LATE NABIBASAB HERUR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HANASBHAVI ROAD, BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AGRICULTURE MARKETING, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, AT: BYADGI, TAL: BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110, R/BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. C.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R3) -*-*-*- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER ANNEXURE-G BEARING 01-01/2- 2008 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ORDER DATED 28/12/2018 IN !"#$ %&'() !"*PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N AS NULL AND VOID; ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 COMMITTEE TO EXECUTE THE LEASE CUM SALE AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE SITE BEARING NO.8 FORMED IN SY.NOS.201, 202 & 203 MEASURING 5735 SQ. FEET, SITUATED WITHIN THE PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 COMMITTEE AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: a) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order Annexure-G bearing 01- 01/2-2008 passed by the Respondent No.3 and order dated 28/12/2018 in !" #$ %&'() !"* passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Annexure-N as null and void. b) Issue an appropriate directions to the Respondent No.3 committee to execute the lease cum sale Agreement in favour of the Petitioners in respect of the site bearing No.8 formed in sy.nos.201, 202 & 203 measuring 5735 Sq. feet, situated within the premises of the Respondent No.3 committee. c) Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners claimed that one Mr. Mohammed Shafi S/o Nabibasab Herur had applied for a site and was granted the same on 13.07.1993 namely plot No.8 formed in Sy.Nos.201, 202 and 203 measuring 5735 Sq.ft at Byadagi. An amount of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 Rs.7,658/- having been paid initially, further amounts were paid from time to time leaving a balance of Rs.6,017/-, which had been sent by him to the respondents vide a demand draft, which came to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that the payment was made belatedly. 3. He expired on 23.08.2006 and thereafter, his mother Smt.Bibijan had submitted a representation that the allotment made in favour of her son be transferred in her favour. She had during her lifetime filed a revision in Revision Petition No.1931/2008 under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Agriculture Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in market yards) Rule 2004, which came to be dismissed. In the meanwhile, Smt. Bibijan having expired, her legal heirs, who are the petitioners herein had earlier filed WP No.64940/2009, which came to be allowed and the matter remitted. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 4. On such remittal, the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 came to be passed rejecting the contention of the petitioners on the ground that the amount of Rs.6,017/- which was required to be paid in the year 1994 had not been paid and as such, the petitioners would not have any right to seek for transfer of the allotment made in favour of Mr. Mohammed Shafi to the petitioners. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Shri Dinesh Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners being the legal heirs of Smt Bibijan are inturn the legal heirs of Mr. Mohammed Shafi and as such, they are entitled for transfer of the allotment made by the APMC in favour of Mr.Mohammed Shafi into their names. As such, he contends that the petitioners being ready and willing to make payment of the amount of Rs.6,017/-, the same - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 ought to have been collected by the respondents and the allotment transferred. 6. Shri C.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/APMC would however submit that the payment of Rs.6,017/- made by Mr.Mohammed Shafi was rejected way back in the year 2005 on the ground that the same was belated, which was not challenged by the said Mohammed Shafi and it is only upon his death that his mother Smt.Bibijan had submitted a representation on 16.10.2006 seeking for transfer, which came to be rejected and which became the subject matter of the revision petition. 7. His submission is that respondent No.1 has considered all the relevant aspects and taken into consideration the belated manner in which the application was filed, the amounts being due from the year 1994, the respondents/authorities have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 rejected the application and no fault can be found therewith. 8. Heard Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri M.M.Khannur, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri C.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 and perused the writ petition papers. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether a direction could be issued to the respondents to collect the balance amount of Rs.6,017/- and a direction be issued to the respondents to transfer the allotment made in favour of Mr.Mohammed Shafi by quashing the order passed in the revision petition. 10. The facts are not in dispute in as much as the allotment was made on 13.07.1993 and even until 25.01.2005, an amount of Rs.6,017/- was due, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 which was forwarded by the said Mr.Mohammed Shafi to the respondents under a Demand Draft dated 25.01.2005, which came to be rejected by the respondents. The rejection having been made in the month of January 2005, Mr.Mohammed Shafi expired on 23.08.2006. Until then, there was no challenge made of the rejection by Mr.Mohammed Shafi. Upon the expiry of Mr.Mohammed Shafi, a representation had been submitted by his mother Smt. Bibijan on 16.10.2006, which also came to be rejected. 11. It is therefore categorically clear that from the year 1994, the amount had not been paid by Mr.Mohammed Shafi and even when a representation was made by his mother Smt.Bibijan, the said amount had not been paid in the year 2006 also. Though it was contended that she is willing to make payment of the amount due, there being a gross delay of nearly 14 years in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 making payment of the entire amount, I am of the considered opinion that no equities can lie with the aforesaid deceased Mr.Mohammed Shafi or deceased Smt.Bibijan giving any right or vested interest in favour of the petitioners to seek for such transfer. 12. The above reasoning is also buttressed by the fact that the petitioners are not carrying on any business as a market functionary of the APMC, the licence granted in favour of Mr.Mohammed Shafi came to an end on his expiry and thereafter, no business has been carried out by either Smt.Bibijan or her legal heirs, who are the petitioners herein. In such a situation, in terms of Rule 7 of the Karnataka Agriculture Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in market yards) Rules 2004 which requires and mandates that for the purpose of allotment of a site/shed or the like, an application can be made only by a - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:49 WP No. 116888 of 2019 market functionary, can not be considered. Neither the petitioners nor Smt. Bibijan being a market functionary, the rejection made of the revision petition, cannot be found fault with. 13. As such no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33