- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30925 WP No. 18800 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 18800 OF 2025 (APMC) BETWEEN: 1. KUSHAL ENTERPRISES, APMC YARD, BATAWADI, TUMKUR -572 103, REP BY ITS PROPREITOR, SRI SHASHI KUMAR P N., S/O LATE PUNYAMURTHY V., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 2. SHATAVEER TRADERS, APMC YARD, BATWADI, TUMKURU - 572 103, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI R. RAGHU, S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.R. SATENAHALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEAPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR BR AMBEDAKR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.11, 16TH RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30925 WP No. 18800 of 2025 MARKET COMMITTEE, BATAWADI, TUMAKURU - 572 103. 4. THE ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKTE COMMITTEE, BATWADI, TUMKUR - 572 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAYALINGAYYA MUDDENURMAT, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASHING THE RESOLUTION DATED 03.05.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-MARKET COMMITTEE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 MARKET COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 17.03.2025 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT MARKET COMMITTEE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-B AND B1 AND TO GRANT ONE YEARS TIME TO THE PETITIONERS TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP-CUM-GODOWNS ON THE ALLOTTED SITE NOS.N8 AND N16 SITUATED AT A.P.M.C.YARD, BATAWADI. TUMKUR-572103. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed for following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ to order quashing the Resolution dated 03.05.2025 passed by the 4th respondent marked committee, produced at Annexure-C. b. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent no.4 market committee to consider the representation dated 17.03.2025 made by the petitioners to the 4th respondent market committee, produced at Annexures-B and B1, and to grant one year's time to the petitioners to complete the construction of the shop cum go- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30925 WP No. 18800 of 2025 downs on the allotted site nos.N8 and N16 situated at APMC Yard, Batawadi, Tumakuru etc. 2. Sri BR Satenahalli, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, sites no.N-8 and N-16 measuring 678.13 sq. ft. and 674.90 sq.ft. situated at Batawadi, Tumakuru, were allotted on lease-cum-sale basis to petitioners by respondent no.4 - Committee, fixing their value at Rs.4,91,646/- and Rs.4,89,305/- respectively vide resolution dated 24.03.2023. Said allotment was approved by respondent no.2. After payment by petitioners to respondent no.4- on 13.03.2023 and 13.04.2023 respectively, lease-cum-sale agreements were executed. On 14.08.2023, petitioners submitted building plan, which were approved on 30.05.2024. But, due to death of their father, petitioners were unable to construct building. Therefore they submitted representation for extension of time for completion of construction. Without proper consideration of same, respondent no.4 passed resolution on 03.05.2024 forfeiting sites, even though licences issued to petitioners were in force till 2018. Aggrieved, petitioners had filed this petition. 3. It was submitted, though Rule 10(4) of Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30925 WP No. 18800 of 2025 Market Yards) Rules, 2004, ('Rules' for short) provided only a period of one year for putting up construction with provision for extension by upto another year, since petitioners were in financial crisis due to sudden demise of their father, they had sought extension of six months time. Same was rejected without proper basis. It was submitted in identical circumstances, this Court in WP no.40225/2014 disposed of on 15.11.2016 had granted relief by extending time for construction for a period of nine months. It was submitted, said order was confirmed by division bench in WA no.260/2017, disposed of on 16.04.2019. Relying on same, learned counsel sought for allowing petition. 4. On other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 opposed petition. 5. Sri T Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent no.3 also opposed petition contending that condition in lease-cum- sale agreement specifically provided time limit for putting up construction and which was not adhered to by petitioners. Conditions of allotment being binding, there was no scope for interference. On said ground sought dismissal of petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30925 WP No. 18800 of 2025 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 7. From above, it is seen petitioner is seeking for quashing of resolution dated 03.05.2025 passed by respondent no.4 - Committee at Annexure-C. Perusal of impugned resolution reveals sole ground for cancellation/forfeiture of allotment was failure to put up construction within period stipulated. In WP no.40225/2014, this Court considered legality of order of forfeiture passed in year 2008 of order of allotment of site in year 2001. Thus, even where there was failure to put up construction even after lapse of more than 7 years after allotment, this Court passed order keeping order of forfeiture in abeyance and permitting petitioner therein to submit building plan and to put up construction within nine months. Said order is confirmed in appeal and there would be no impediment in applying same to present case also. 8. Hence, writ petition is allowed. (i) Impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by respondent no.4 - Market Committee, produced at Annexure-C is kept in abeyance for a period of nine months from today subject to petitioner filing of an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30925 WP No. 18800 of 2025 affidavit undertaking to complete putting up of construction as per sanctioned plan within time limit indicated above. (ii) Petitioner shall also file an application for sanction of building plan or for extension of time for completion of construction therein within a period of five weeks from today. On filing of such application, respondent no.4 to consider same within five weeks in accordance with law. (iii) Petitioner shall put-up shop-cum-godown within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of sanctioned plan. (iv) If petitioner defaults in adhering to time schedule stipulated herein above, impugned order of forfeiture shall stand automatically revived. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10