- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103459 OF 2023 (APMC) BETWEEN: ESHWARAPPA S/O SHIVABASAPPA GADAD, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR SRI DANESHWARI TRADERS, OLD VEGETABLE MARKET, HAVERI-581 110. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VEEDHANA VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC YARD, HAVERI-581 110. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P.N. HATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 16- 05-2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN BEARING NO. KruMaaEi/KruMaaSa(Haa)/NiYaVi/31/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2AND ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.65A SITUATED AT THE CATTLE MARKET AREA OF THE COMMITTEE (FOODGRAIN MARKET), HAVERI WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PAYMENT OF DIFFERENCE AMOUNT AS CLAIMED VIDE ANNEXURE-H. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 16.05.2023 at Annexure-H. In terms of the said endorsement, the petitioner was called upon to pay ₹7,99,160/- towards difference of the site value which is said to have been allotted to the petitioner by respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said endorsement. The petitioner had applied for site from respondent No.2 pursuant to Notification issued by respondent No. 2 in the year 2004. On 23.02.2005, the petition property (Site No.33) was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner complied all the terms and conditions relating to allotment and a registered lease-cum- sale deed came to be executed on 23.02.2005 in favour of the petitioner. However, in the year 2010, 2nd respondent without notice to the petitioner unilaterally modified the layout plan and concluded that Site No.33 is not available and offered an alternative site to petitioner i.e. Site No.20. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 3. The site No.33 which was allotted earlier measured 2382 square feet. The site which was offered later, by 2nd respondent was measuring 5000 square feet. The petitioner expressed his inability to pay the price for the site which is offered as an alternative. 4. The lease-cum-sale deed was formally not cancelled. However admitted factual position is that Site No.33 which was allotted to the petitioner is not available, as such, the petitioner was without any site. 5. The petitioner once again made a request for allotment of Site No.65A vide representation dated 31.07.2010, which, according to the petitioner, was of almost the same dimension as Site No.33. Respondent No.2 did not take any action on the said request. On 17.06.2013, the petitioner made one more request to respondent No.2 seeking allotment of Site No.65A. On 30.09.2013, committee passed a resolution directing respondent No.2 to furnish the specific dimension of site to be allotted to the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 6. As there was no further action by the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.105163/2017, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2023, directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2017, marked at Annexure-F. 7. Thereafter, on 16.05.2023, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹7,99,160/- towards the differential site amount for Site No.65A. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner was allotted Site No.33 in the year 2005, and the respondents has no authority to demand higher market price for the site, which is now sought to be allotted i.e., Site No.65A. It is his submission that the respondents should be directed to execute the Sale Deed in respect of Site No.65A without insisting for any revised market value. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would urge that though the Site No.33 was allotted after proper - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 measurement, it is noticed that Site No.33 is not available. Respondent No.2 offered a better site to the petitioner measuring 5,000 square feet (Site No.20). However, the petitioner refused to accept the said site, as such no fault can be found with respondent No.2-APMC. 11. It is his submission that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.105163/2017, respondent No.2 has taken a decision to allot a site, and immediately intimated the petitioner to pay the revised market value vide Annexure-R3. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and produced the records. 13. Certain facts are admitted. The petitioner had filed an application for allotment of a site, pursuant to which, Site No.33 was allotted to him. Respondent No.2 executed a registered Lease-cum-Sale Deed on 23.02.2005. The registered Lease-cum- Sale Deed indicates that the entire sale consideration amount had been paid. 14. The Site bearing No.33, mentioned in the Lease-cum- sale Deed, was not handed over to the petitioner despite its - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 allotment and execution of the registered lease cum Sale Deed. Due to the mistake of respondent No.2- APMC, the said site, which was in fact not available, was allotted to the petitioner, and the entire sale consideration was collected from him. Later, the layout itself is cancelled and modified. The petitioner was left without site in the modified layout plan. Despite this, the sale consideration amount was not refunded to the petitioner. 15. The petitioner's request to allotment of another site of similar dimensions was not considered until this Court passed orders in W.P.No.105163/2017. Earlier, respondent No.2-APMC offered a bigger site to the petitioner and insisted for higher amount. The petitioner, being unable to pay the higher amount requested for a site of similar size which was allotted earlier. In the process for the last 20 years, the petitioner's entire amount for Site No.33 collected by respondent No.2 remained with respondent No.2 and the petitioner was left without site for the last 20 years. 16. Looking at the chronology of events that have unfolded since 2005, it is noticed that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner at any point of time. This situation has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 arisen on account of negligent act on the part of respondent No.2-APMC in allotting a site in a layout which was not property formed. In any event after noticing that the petitioner is left without site, respondent No.2-APMC should have offered the alternative site of the same dimension which was allotted earlier and instead of that offered a bigger site which was beyond the reach of the petitioner. Then the sale consideration should have been refunded immediately. The APMC retained the amount and the Court would presume that the amount is utilized by respondent No.2-APMC. Only after the direction issued by this Court, respondent No.2-APMC offered a site of similar dimension to the petitioner. However, respondent No.2-APMC is now insisting a revised market value, for which the petitioner is not responsible. The delay has occurred on account of negligence on the part of respondent No.2-APMC. 17. Under these circumstances, the impugned endorsement demanding higher price from the petitioner is wholly unjustified. In fact respondent No.2-APMC is liable to pay interest on the amount paid by the petitioner in the year 2005, and which is still lying with respondent No.2-APMC. Instead of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 that, the respondent-APMC is demanding higher market price on the premise that the petitioner is required to pay the market value prevailing as on the date of the new allotment. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his magnanimity would submit that the petitioner would not insist for any interest from respondent No.2-APMC. 19. The respondent No.2-APMC has to execute the registered lease cum sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had paid registration and stamp duty on earlier occasion in respect of Site No.33 which is not made available to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 APMC shall also bear the registration charges and the stamp duty payable in respect of the lease cum sale deed to be executed in favour of the petitioner. 20. Though the Court is inclined to impose cost on respondent No.2-APMC, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not insist for cost. Hence, cost is not imposed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15245 WP No. 103459 of 2023 21. Hence the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The endorsement dated 16.05.2023 issued by respondent No.2 marked as Annexure-H is quashed. c) Respondent No.2-APMC shall execute the registered lease cum Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner. d) Respondent No.2-APMC shall bear the stamp duty and registration charges for the registered lease cum sale deed to be executed in favour of the petitioner. e) The exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK,PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57