- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1971 OF 2025 (APMC) BETWEEN: 1. 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 …APPELLANT (BY SRI ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, II RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE MARKET YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S.HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1) Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/09/2025 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.53599/2017 (APMC) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.53599/2017 (APMC) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application―I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.53599/2017 (APMC). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 3. The appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 08.10.2017 passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mysuru [APMC]. 4. The appellant prays that directions be issued for implementation of the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.37274/2016 (M/s S.R.S.Enterprises v. The Director of Agricultural Marketing and another) and to execute a necessary lease cum sale deed in favour of the appellant for an additional space of 407.12 sq.ft. of site bearing No.A-280 of Bandipalya Market Yard, Mysuru. 5. The undisputed facts are that on 05.11.2007, a lease cum sale agreement was executed and registered in favour of the appellant for a site bearing number A-280, which measured 85 feet from east to west and 30 feet from north to south. The total area of the site is 2550 square feet. The appellant had paid the full consideration of Rs.2,29,500/- for the said site. 6. The appellant states that thereafter it constructed a shop, which was in excess of the area allotted and an additional area of 407.12 square feet [hereinafter 'the encroached land'] was used. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 The appellant claims that the additional construction was regularised by the APMC by imposing additional cost of Rs.120/- per square feet and towards penalty of Rs.120/- per square feet (total Rs.240/- per square feet). However, thereafter, on a complaint made by one M/s. KNV Sagar and Sons [the complainant], who was waiting for allotment of site since several years, the Government of Karnataka addressed a communication dated 27.05.2015 to the Director of APMC calling upon the APMC to evaluate whether regularisation of the encroached land is feasible. The said communication is reproduced below. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO.SAE 577 MRE 2014 Government of Karnataka Secretariat, Multi-storied Building, Bangalore, Date: 27.05.2015 From: Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Co-operation, Multi-Storied Building, Bengaluru - 560 001. To: The Director, Department of Agricultural Marketing, No.16, 2nd Raj Bhavan Road, Bengaluru - 560 001. Sir, Sub: Regarding the complaint submitted by Sri.K.N.Vidyasagar, Proprietor, M/s K.N.V. Sagar and Sons, Mysore. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 Ref: 1. Complaints submitted to the Government by Sri K.N. Vidyasagar, Proprietor, M/s K.N.V. Sagar and Sons, Mysore on dates: 19.12.2014, 16.01.2015, 24.01.2015, 16.03.2015, 17.03.2015, and 04.05.2015. 2. Complaint application dated 22.01.2015, 17.03.2015, and 04.05.2015 submitted by Sri K.N. Vidyasagar to your office. 3. Your letter No:KrumaNi/ Mahavi/ 54/2014, dated 20.01.2015, and KrumaNi/ 308/ABhike/11, dated 22.03.2015 and 29.04.2015. With reference to the above subject, as mentioned at ref (1) and (2), copies of the complaint applications dated 04.05.2015 and 22.01.2015, which the petitioner has also addressed to you, are enclosed herewith, and your attention is drawn to the letters at ref (3). Regarding the subject mentioned above, how reasonable is the decision taken in the meeting held on 03.01.2015 under the Chairmanship of the Director (the action of regularizing an illegal building by collecting a penalty)? Won't such decisions pave the way for unauthorized/illegal building construction/site encroachment cases in all APMCs across the state? Therefore, I am directed to request you to revise this decision and take appropriate action as per rules regarding providing the remaining 1250 sq. ft. space due to Sri K.N. Vidyasagar (who has been deprived of the site since 2007), and to submit a revised opinion report immediately. Yours faithfully, Sd/-xxx (E. Papanna) Under Secretary to Government Co-operation Department 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, the APMC examined the question of regularisation and passed a resolution dated 16.06.2016 rejecting the same. It issued an endorsement dated 18.06.2016 revoking the earlier resolution and refunded the amount of Rs.4,55,975/- paid by the appellant. The APMC also took a decision to evict the appellant from the encroached land. 8. In view of the above, the appellant filed W.P.No.37274/2016 impugning the endorsement dated 18.06.2016 and also prayed that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 a direction be issued to APMC to consider its representation dated 17.05.2016. The said writ petition was disposed by an order dated 04.07.2017, directing the respondents to consider the representation. 9. It is material to note that no finding was rendered by this Court regarding the appellant's right for regularization. On the contrary, the Court had noted the submissions of APMC that it had not executed any deed in respect to the encroached land in favour of the appellant. The APMC had also sanctioned a plan for the allotted site. But the appellant had raised a construction beyond the sanctioned plan. It was contended hat the appellant had deliberately constructed a building encroaching 407.12 square feet of land (the encroached land) which was in violation of the lease- cum-sale agreement dated 05.11.2007 as well as a sanctioned plan. 10. Thereafter, the APMC passed an order dated 08.10.2017 calling upon the appellant to vacate the encroached land. 11. The appellant once again filed a writ petition in W.P.No.53599/2017 impugning the order dated 08.10.2017 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 whereby the appellant was called upon to vacate the encroached land. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 18.01.2023. The Court inter alia observed that: 9. In the present case, as could be seen from the sketches which have been produced by the Market committee, the encroachment made by the petitioner is as regards the passage leading to another plot No.280-B which only has an access through this passage. On account of the encroachment made by the petitioner, the allottee of plot No.280-B as and when allotted would be deprived of the passage as contained in the plan. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner in order to increase the area of his shop has encroached upon the common area which would cause inconvenience and distress to another person, as also interfere with the layout planning of the Market Committee as regards the market yard. In such facts and circumstances, if the violation committed by the petitioner is approved by this court, the same could also result in many more violations. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that no premium could be paid to the violation committed by the petitioner and mere payment of monies would not absolve the petitioner of violating and encroaching upon the common passage. 10. The petitioner not making out any grounds stands dismissed. 12. The appellant filed a review petition in R.P.No.100/2023 inter alia on the ground that the encroached land was not a common area. In the review petition the appellant also pointed out that the modified layout plan had been sanctioned pursuant to the regularisation. In view of the above the review petition, R.P.No.100/2023 was allowed by an order dated 05.06.2025 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 the writ petition, W.P.No.53599/2017 was restored. The said writ petition came to be rejected in terms of the impugned order. 13. The learned Single Judge found that the issue in dispute that the appellant had put up a construction by utilizing the encroached land, which belonged to the APMC. The encroachment was regularised, which came to be revoked pursuant to the communication dated 27.05.2015. 14. The appellant contended that since the said communication was issued without hearing the appellant, the same was in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge rejected the said contention on the ground that the said communication merely called upon the APMC to reconsider the case of regularisation and therefore, it did not require any hearing to be afforded to the appellant. 15. The contention that the APMC was required to regularize the encroachment by considering the representation in view of the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37274/2016 was also disposed of as the said decision merely required that the concerned authority to consider the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 representation made by the appellant. Undisputedly, the same had been considered and rejected. 16. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge found no fault with the decision of the APMC to direct eviction of the appellant as there is no dispute that the appellant had encroached upon the land. He did not have any rights or title in the said encroached land. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the use of the encroached land does not adversely affect any person and there is also no adverse effect on the complainant, M/s KNV Sagar, on whose complaint, the Government had issued communication dated 27.05.2015, which in turn, had triggered the APMC to reconsider the regularisation in favour of the appellant. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submitted that in terms of Section 9(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, the APMC was competent to contract and “to acquire, allot, lease, sell or otherwise transfer any property: and therefore is well within the power to regularize the encroached land. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52816-DB WA No. 1971 of 2025 19. There is no dispute that APMC could have the power to allot an area and to execute other contracts for the purposes for which it was established. The question to be addressed in this case, is whether the appellant has any right for regularization of the encroachment. The answer is clearly in the negative. The appellant was allotted a site of a specified area and the plans were also sanctioned with respect to the said area. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant had encroached an additional space of 407.12 square feet and also had constructed in excess/variation of the sanctioned plan. The regularization of such excess construction which is carried out with impunity would clearly be debilitating to the rule of law. We find no infirmity with the impugned. 20. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly dismissed. 21. Pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25