- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 53599 OF 2017 (APMC) BETWEEN: M/S. S.R.S. ENTERPRISES NO.280/2, 5TH CROSS, A-BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSORE, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, S. PRAKASH, S/O. LATE SIDDOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, …PETITIONER [BY SRI B R SATHENAHALLI, ADVOCATE (PH))] AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MYSORE, MYSORE-NANJANGUD ROAD, BANDIPALYA, MYSORE - 560 025, BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 (PH); SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND RETURNS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; SET ASIDE THE ORDER ISSUED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-K DATED 8.10.2017 DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN W.P. No.37274/2016 DATED 4.7.2017 AT ANNEXURE-J BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.5.2016 AT ANNEXURE-F SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY LEASE CUM SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE EXTRA 407.12 SQ. FT. OF SITE BEARING A-280, BANDIPALYA MARKET YARD, MYSORE FORTHWITH. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 08.10.2017 passed by respondent no.1 as per Annexure-K and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents to implement directions issued by this Court in W.P.no.37274/2016 at Annexure-J by considering petitioner’s representation dated 17.05.2016 at Annexure-F etc., this writ petition is filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 2. Sri B.R. Sathenahalli, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was allotted a stray site bearing site no.A-280, measuring East to West 85 ft. and North to South 30 ft. on payment of full value of site Rs.2,29,5008/- and Lease- cum-Sale Agreement was executed in favour of petitioner by respondent no.2. It was submitted, petitioner was granted with trader license valid upto 31.03.2018 and petitioner was carrying trading activities in market yard. As he had put up construction in excess area he made request for modification of boundaries of land allotted. Considering same, respondent no.2 - Market Committee passed a Resolution on 24.05.2014 to modify dimensions by collecting additional amount of Rs.120/- per sq.ft. + Rs.120/- per sq.ft. towards penalty in all Rs.240/- per sq.ft. with regard to additional area sought, as per Annexure-A. 3. It was submitted, Resolution was forwarded to respondent no.1 for approval as required under Section 9 (2) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. It was submitted, prior to passing of Resolution, one M/s. KNV Sagar and Sons had submitted a complaint before Government about unauthorised construction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 put up below High Tension Transmission Lines and seeking for their removal. It was alleged, petitioner herein had encroached to an extent of 407.12 sq.ft. 4. Based on complaint, a High Level Committee was convened to examine matter. Said Committee noted encroachment of 407.12 sq.ft. by petitioner, but approved it for regularization by imposing cost and penalty at Rs.1,120/- per sq.ft. insofar as petitioner and to remove encroachment by others. Thereafter, petitioner was served with notice dated 10.02.2015 to pay sum of Rs.4,55,975/- as additional cost and penalty as per Annexure-D. In pursuance of same, petitioner paid additional cost and penalty. However on complaint by M/s. KNV Sagar and Sons to Government, direction was issued as per Annexure-E, on 27.05.2015 for reconsideration of recommendation of High Level Committee. 5. In meanwhile, petitioner submitted plan for post facto approval of additional construction as per Annexure-F. In pursuance of direction by Government, respondent no.2 passed Resolution on 16.06.2016 reversing its earlier Resolution dated 03.01.2015 resolving to refund amount of Rs.4,55,975/- paid - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 by petitioner and to evict petitioner from encroached area, as per Annexure-G. Based on same, Market Committee issued endorsement as per Annexure-H. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.no.37274/2016 seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider petitioner’s representation dated 17.05.2016 at Annexure-F and to execute necessary Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in his favour. 6. It was submitted despite direction, representation dated 17.05.2016 had remained without consideration. Thereafter, instead of considering petitioner's representation in proper perspective, impugned notice as per Annexure-K is issued to petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner had approached this Court. It was submitted, direction having been issued by this Court to consider his representation, issuance of notice was contrary to law and sought for quashing same. 7. On other hand, Sri Bhojegowda T. Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 and Sri T. Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed writ petition. It was submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that there was no dispute about petitioner being allottee - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 of plot No.A-280 in respondent no.2 - APMC Yard. On finding that petitioner had put up construction over additional area to an extent of 407.12 sq.ft., and considering application filed by petitioner, Market Committee had earlier passed a resolution approving for allotment of said area on cost of Rs.120/- per sq.ft., plus penalty of Rs.120/- per sq.ft., as per Annexure-A. Same was forwarded to respondent no.1, who had approved on 11.07.2014. However on a complaint, Government had issued direction for re-examination of same. High Level Committee constituted therefore recommended for grant of additional land occupied, but on allotment cost plus penalty at Rs.1,120/- per sq.ft. Said amount was paid by petitioner. But, based on a complaint once again before Government, a direction was issued to reconsider its decision to approve encroachment, as per Annexure-E. 8. It was submitted power to issue direction by government was traceable to Section 126 of Act. In pursuance of same, respondent no.2 had re-examined and resolved to recall its earlier decision dated 03.01.2015 approving grant of additional land to petitioner, to refund amount paid for same and to evict petitioner from encroached area as per Annexure- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 G. Petitioner was informed of resolution as per Annexure-H. Petitioner thereafter, filed WP.no.37274/2016 before this Court for a direction to consider his representation. Said writ petition was disposed of on 04.07.2017 with a direction to consider petitioner's representation within eight weeks, as per order at Annexure-J. Thereafter, respondent no.1 considered petitioner's representation in light of directions issued and rejected same and directed petitioner as well as respondent no.2 to remove construction on encroached land and to restore same to APMC. It was submitted that there was no provision for regularization of encroachment. It was submitted that there was no dispute about petitioner having encroached upon land belonging to Market Committee to an extent of 407.12 sq.ft. Since there was no provision for regularization, order passed was in accordance with law and did not call for interference. 9. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that power under Section 126 can be exercised only after giving notice to petitioner. 10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition papers. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 11. From above, it is seen that petitioner's grievance against impugned order at Annexure-K passed by respondent no.1 is that there is no consideration in light of direction issued in W.P.no.37274/2016 and seeks for consideration of representation. It is also contended that petitioner had put up construction in additional area and utilizing same for his business and in terms of earlier resolution and approval granted for allotment of said extent to petitioner, petitioner had deposited amount of Rs.4,55,975/-, which was lying with respondents and on said consideration, impugned order is to be set aside. 12. From above facts, allotment of site no.A-280 measuring 30x85 sq.ft., in 'A' Block of respondent no.2 - APMC yard is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after allotment, when petitioner put up construction, he had utilized an extent of 407.12 sq.ft., in addition to area allotted, which belonged to APMC. As per his request, APMC resolved to allot it to him on cost and penalty which was paid by him. On a complaint before Government, a direction was issued as per Annexure-E to reconsider said decision. Admittedly, direction at Annexure-E is not under challenge. In any case, direction at - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 Annexure-E by itself cannot be said to impose any civil consequences requiring compliance with principles of natural justice. 13. In fact, direction obtained in favour of petitioner in W.P.no.37274/2016 by order dated 04.07.2017 at Annexure-J is only to consider his representation for regularization, after Market Committee had recalled its earlier resolution approving grant in favour of petitioner by accepting allotment price and penalty. While considering representation, respondent no.1 has examined petitioner's representation in perspective as same would have ramification all over State, thereafter had concluded that regularization of encroachment would not be feasible or justifiable. Admittedly, there is no provision in APMC Act permitting regularization of encroachment. Same would also opposed to public policy. Moreover, order recalling earlier resolution for regularisation is not challenged. 14. Under above circumstances, neither reasons stated by respondent no.1 for rejecting petitioner's representation nor manner of passing said order would suffer from any irregularity - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37529 WP No. 53599 of 2017 or illegality calling for interference. Consequently, petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD/ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21