- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2021 (APMC) BETWEEN: SRI D HANUMANTHE GOWDA, S/O LATE SRI S D MURIGAPPA, AGE MAJOR 70 YEARS, R/O H NO 480, SRI RAMESWARA NILAYA, III CROSS, TILAK NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKEING REGULATION THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO 16, II RAJBHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 3 . THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE P B NO 72, APMC YARD SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA REP BY PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY. 4 . THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 5 . THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA TV TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 6 . THE CITY CORPORATION SHIVAMOGGA CITY, SHIVAMOGGA REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 7 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA. 8 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISON, II FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 9 . SRI D BHAREMEGOWDA S/O SRI RAMANNA GOWDA AGE MAJOR, SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KORLAHALLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK R/O MAHALASA KRUPA OPP VIKASA SCHOOL MAIN ROAD, ALKOLA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4, R5, R7 & R8 (PH); SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PH); SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 (PH); SRI BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADV. FOR R9 (VC)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED BY R-8 VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED BY R-3 IN RESOLUTION NOS.12(1) TO 12(4) VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ORDER DATED 20.11.2012 PASSED BY R-6 IN NO.C4CR NO.18/2012-13 (IN ITS PROCEEDINGS DTD 22.06.2012) VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Respondent No.2 in No. Kruma-E-Abhivi- 1/Appeal/76/2017 as per Annexure S and order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Respondent No.8 in No. Mun.RP 20/2017-18 as per Annexure T and consequential orders dated 30.03.2012 passed by Respondent No.3 in Resolution Nos. 12(1) to 12(4) as per Annexure H and order dated 20.11.2012 passed by Respondent No.6 in No.C4CR No.18/2012-13 (in its proceedings dated 22.06.2012) as per Annexure K issue of writ in the nature of certiorari or writ as the case may be; (ii) Consequently direct the Respondent Nos.3 & 6 to restore the name of the Petitioner as Khatedhar in respect of Khata of the property bearing No.F. 7. APMC Yard. Shivamogga so also the Trade License in its name of the Petitioner in No.113-T1050100 dated 25.08.2011; 2. Sri MV Hiremath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was carrying on business in respondent no.3 - Market Yard, in shop no.F-7 purchased by his father - Sri Murugappa under sale deed dated 12.12.1973, as he was having trade licence issued in name of firm M/s Sorturu- D-Murugappa and Company. It was submitted, petitioner's father and his younger brother - Sri D. Eshwarappa were representing Company. It was submitted, said sale was with specific condition requiring construction of building within five - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 years and in case of intention to sell site/building, it could be sold only to persons holding permanent licence for trade issued by respondent no.3 - Committee. It was submitted, petitioner's father died on 27.08.2004 leaving behind petitioner as his sole legal heir. Therefore, he filed application for substituting his name as owner of building and in trade licence. On verification, respondent no.3 effected changes on 25.08.2011 as per Annexure-D. 3. It was submitted, petitioner had also sought change of Khata before respondent no.6, which was effected as per Annexure-E. As such, petitioner was carrying on business. However, respondent no.9 claiming to be partner of M/s Sorturu-D-Murugappa and Company ('Firm, for short) filed appeal before respondent no.3 under Rule 81 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Development) Rules, 1968, ('Rules', for short) and sought for annulment of trade licence dated 25.08.2011. In said appeal, it was asserted that petitioner had admitted respondent no.9 to be one of partners of Firm along with petitioner's father by executing an unregistered deed of relinquishment and agreement deed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 favour of respondent no.9 relinquishing his right in Firm in favour of other partners, as per Annexures-F and G respectively. 4. Based merely on assertion, respondent no.3, allowed appeal and cancelled trade licence issued to petitioner on 25.08.2011. In pursuance of said order, respondent no.3 informed respondent no.6 for change of name and that same was carried out as per Annexure-K. Aggrieved by change of Khata, petitioner filed appeal before respondent no.7, who entertained appeal and granted interim order of stay. In meanwhile, as respondent no.6 was upgraded to Municipal Corporation, appeal came to be transferred to respondent no.5. An endorsement to said effect was issued noting that question of cancellation of licence was not pending before it. On noting that appeal against cancellation of trade licence was different from order of change of Khata, petitioner filed appeals before respondents no.2 and 8 respectively. 5. Thereafter in appeal before respondent no.2, respondent no.3 filed objections stating that respondent no.9 had sought to rely upon relinquishment deed executed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 petitioner's father and contending that entry of name of petitioner was not justified. Even respondent no.9 filed objections similarly. Under above circumstances, respondents no.2 and 8 were Appellate/Revisional Authorities proceeded to reject appeal/revision. Aggrieved by same, this writ petition was filed. 6. It was submitted, cancellation of trade licence issued in name of petitioner was without opportunity to petitioner and therefore appeal was filed. In said appeal, respondent no.9 had sought to rely on unregistered relinquishment deed and agreement to substantiate that petitioner's father had relinquished his interest in Firm in favour of other partners, who had executed agreement in favour of respondent no.9. It was submitted admittedly, immovable property was standing in name of Firm. Therefore, an unregistered relinquishment deed stated to have been executed by petitioner's father could not result in valid transfer, likewise, in case of agreement in favour of respondent no.9. It was submitted, as respondents no.3 and 6, on verification mutated name of petitioner in place of his father in trade licence as well - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 as revenue records in respect of property held by Firm, which was sought to be contested by respondent no.9, it would be required of him to have approached Civil Court, established his right, title or interest in Firm, prior to approaching respondents no.3 and 6 for entry of his name in respect of Firm. 7. On other hand, respondent authorities had acted on documents which could not be treated as evidence in view of Section 49 of Indian Registration Act, 1917. Therefore on said ground as well as on ground of order of cancellation of trade licence was in violation of principles of natural justice, learned counsel prayed for allowing writ petition. 8. Sri Bhojegowda T. Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8; Sri T. Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent no.3; Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, learned counsel for respondent no.9 opposed writ petition. 9. It was submitted that there was no dispute about allotment of site no.F-7, measuring 60 ft. X 100 ft. in APMC - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 Yard, Shivamogga, in favour of Firm and a conditional sale deed was executed on 12.12.1973. At time of execution of sale deed, Firm was represented by its partner and thereafter, a building was also constructed. Thereafter, respondent no.9 had filed an appeal before respondent no.3 stating that he was owner of site no.F-7 and Firm and that petitioner by playing fraud, obtained licence and Khata in respect of said site, in his name. It was submitted on verification, respondent no.3 found that at time of execution of sale deed, Firm had four partners namely, D.Murigeppa, D.Eshwarappa, D.Vasudev and D.Bharmegowda. Said Bharmegowda claimed that under document dated 12.01.1974 at Annexure-F, partners of Firm had released their rights in favour of respondent no.9, who became proprietor of Firm. Thereafter, D.Murigeppa and D.Eshwarappa were passed away and petitioner, who was a stranger to Firm had given false information in Form no.41 and illegally got licence of Firm as well as Khata in respect of shop no.F-7 transferred in his name. It was submitted, petitioner had failed to produce any document to establish about his ownership of site or Firm. Taking note of said factors, respondent no.3 resolved on 30.03.2012 as per Annexure-H to cancel transfer of licence in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 favour of petitioner to get Khata in favour of petitioner removed and to prosecute petitioner. It had communicated said Resolution to respondent no.6. 10. In light of above facts, Appeal no.76/2017 filed by petitioner before respondent no.2 came to be dismissed as per Annexure-S. Likewise, Revision in R.P.no.20/2017-18 filed by petitioner before respondent no.8 was dismissed on 14.10.2019 as per Annexure-T. It was submitted, orders passed were strictly in accordance with law and did not call for interference. 11. It was submitted, while petitioner claimed to be son of one of partners of Firm, claim of respondent no.9 was as a partner. Therefore, probabilities favored respondent no.9 and in case petitioner were to dispute same, he was required to establish his rights before Civil Court first. It was submitted, against Resolution of respondent no.3 dated 30.03.2012, petitioner filed appeal after six years. Hence, same was liable for dismissal on ground of delay itself. 12. It was submitted, copy of sale deed sought to be relied upon by petitioner to substantiate that site no.F-7 was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 allotted in favour of Firm contained overwriting/interpolation and therefore unreliable. It was submitted, there were no documents or records to establish that petitioner had become owner of Firm. On said ground sought for dismissal. 13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record. 14. From above, it is seen, petitioner's grievance against Resolution at Annexure-H and order at Annexures-S and T is principally that they were in violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, orders at Annexures-S and T are consequential to Resolution at Annexure-H. 15. As noted above, Resolution of respondent no.3 is challenged specifically on ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Though said Resolution mentions about issuance of notice to respondent no.2 and about is failure to utilize opportunity by producing documents, specific records about issuance of notice and service on petitioner, is not substantiated. Even statement that trade licence was issued in favour of four persons, which included D.Murigeppa and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 D.Bharmegowda, is also not substantiated with any document. In fact, in response to a direction, respondent no.3 merely produced application for transfer filed by petitioner along with appended documents, but failed to produce original trade licence. 16. On other hand, learned counsel for petitioner filed copies of endorsements issued by District Registrar of Firms about non-availability of records pertaining to Firm. 17. It is seen, claim of respondent no.9 is based on unregistered deeds at Annexures-F and G. Bare perusal of said documents would reveal that a relinquishment deed was alleged to have been executed by three other partners of Firm in favour of remaining partner - respondent no.9, relinquishing their entire interest in Firm. Admittedly, as per petitioner as well as respondent no.3, allotment of shop no.F-7 was in favour of Firm and any transfer of interest in immovable property valued more than Rs.100/- could be validly executed only by a registered instrument, likewise, in case of agreement at Annexure-G. Hence, both documents, which form basis of claim by respondent no.9 ex-facie appear doubtful. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 18. Since, it was respondent no.9, who had filed appeal against transfer of trade licence in name of petitioner as well as change of name in Khata in respect of shop no.F-7, it would be incumbent on him to establish said claim with acceptable material. Respondent-Authorities, while performing quasi- judicial functions, cannot ignore legal principles about documents, whether it would constitute 'evidence' to establish valid and legal transfer of interest. 19. However, it is apparent, that while deciding appeal filed by respondent no.9, respondent no.3 chose to base its conclusion on weakness of case of respondent in appeal rather than on merit of appellants' claim. Thus, for aforesaid reasons, impugned resolution passed by respondent no.3 at Annexure-H would be unsustainable. As a consequence, impugned orders passed by respondents no.2 and 8 at Annexures-S and T would also suffer same fate. Hence, writ petition is allowed, impugned Resolutions bearing no.12 (1) to 12 (4) dated 30.03.2012 passed by respondent no.3 as per Annexure-H; order dated 25.10.2019 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38871 WP No. 1164 of 2021 passed by respondent no.2 in no.Kruma-E-Abhivi- 1/Appeal/76/2017 as per Annexure-S and order dated 14.10.2019 passed by respondent no.8 in no.Mun.RP.20/2017- 18 as per Annexure-T are quashed. However, respondent no.9 would be at liberty to approach appropriate forum, establish his claims and thereafter approach respondent authorities, if so desired. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49