- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.17181 OF 2023 (APMC) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. REGISTERED IN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL , SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. PATEL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3 . THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADMNISTRATOR TO THE KOLAR APMC, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUSNEL FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEETING PROCEEDINGS OF R-3 AND 4 DATWD 03.07.2023 VIDE ANNX-ZE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KRUMAAEE/ABEVE/MYAPRA/505/2005 DATED 06.07.2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 VEDE ANNX-ZE1 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KRUUMASA.KO.215/2023-24 DATED 10.07.2023 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-ZF AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.08.2026 FOR ORDER COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - CAV ORDER 1. Petitioner-Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., is before this Court seeking following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned meeting proceedings of Respondent No.3 and 4 dated 03.07.2023 in Annexure-ZE, the impugned order No.KruMaaEe/Abeve/Nyapra/505/2005 dated 06.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 in Annexure-ZE1 and the impugned order NO. KruUMaSa: Ko: 215/2023-24 dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Annexure- ZF. ii. Issue in Writ in the nature of mandamus directing to the Respondent No.2 and 3 to execute the sale deed as per condition No.27 of the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 25.04.2005 in Annexure-D and allow the petitioner Marketing Federation to develop the land in question to benefit the local farmers. iii. Such order direction or order or writ as may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be issued, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Case of the petitioner-Society in brief is; 2.1 That petitioner-Society was allotted 4 acres of vacant land in APMC Yard, Kolar on 13.03.1992 by respondent No.3- APMC. A revised Order dated 02.09.1992 was passed by respondent No.2 allotting 4 acres and 4 guntas of land in favour of the petitioner-Society without change in any conditions mentioned in the earlier Order dated 13.03.1992. 2.2 That allotment of the said land was for the purpose of construction of cold storage and petitioner had - 4 - established 2500 Metric Ton capacity of cold storage unit during the year 1994-95. 2.3 That subsequently petitioner-Society had made several representations to respondent No.2 calling upon them to execute and register deed of conveyance in respect of aforesaid land in its favour. However, the said requests were not considered. 2.4 That on 25.04.2005, Administrator had registered a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said lease-cum-sale agreement on 18.02.2011, the Joint Director (Project) Agricultural Marketing Department, Bangalore approved and passed an order giving permission to the petitioner-Society to put up construction of shed on the land allotted. 2.5 That by letter dated 22.02.2012, President of APMC, Kolar had requested petitioner to return 2 acres of land out of 4 acres allotted for the purpose of establishment of Bio-gas unit. 2.6 That the petitioner-Society in its reply letter dated 28.03.2012, Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing - 5 - Federation Ltd., had stated that it had already constructed 1000 Metric Tons capacity of godown for storage of fertilizers and agricultural produce. As such, it required the land for its own purposes. 2.7 By another letter dated 07.07.2012, petitioner-Society had informed respondent No.2 that in addition to 2,500 metric tons capacity of cold storage and 1,000 metric tons of capacity of godown, the petitioner had proposed to construct 2,000 metric tons capacity of godown in the same premises and the project proposal had been sent to NCBC, New Delhi. 2.8 That the petitioner had already complied with the conditions stated in the original allotment letter and was intended to take up construction of godown on the said land. 2.9 That by a letter dated 09.04.2014, the concerned Ministry of Government of Karnataka had again called upon the petitioner-Society to return 2 acres of land to respondent No.3, out of 4 acres of land allotted to the petitioner- Society. - 6 - 2.10 Respondent No.2 had passed an order dated 18.04.2013, stating that 2 acres of land, out of 4 acres of land was vacant and there was no program for developmental activities. 2.11 Petitioner challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.24143/2013. By Order dated 20.03.2015, this Court set-aside the said order and directed the parties to approach respondent No.2 by keeping open all the contentions. 2.12 That during the pendency of the said petition in W.P.No.24143/2013, respondent No.3 had issued a show cause notice dated 20.03.2015 to the petitioner-Society to show cause as to why, 2 acres of land should not be forfeited. 2.13 Respondent No.3, however further issued a notice dated 07.04.2015 calling upon the petitioner-Society to stop construction work on the remaining 2 acres of land, out of 4 acres within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. - 7 - 2.14 That petitioner-Society issued a communication dated 25.04.2015 to respondent No.2 stating that there is huge demand for godown in APMC Yard, Kolar. As such, construction of godown of 2500 metric ton capacity on 2 acres of land was for the benefit of agriculturists and the societies. 2.15 That petitioner-Society issued two letters dated 25.04.2015 and 30.05.2015 to respondent No.3 seeking time to reply to the show cause notice dated 20.03.2015. 2.16 That by communication dated 24.06.2015, petitioner- Society sought permission of the respondent No.3 to put up construction of 2500 metric tons capacity of godown on the remaining 2 acres of land and requested not to cause obstruction in the construction work. 2.17 That on 08.07.2015, Board of respondent No.3 conducted emergency meeting by passing resolution permitting the petitioner to put up construction of 2,500 metric tons capacity of godown on the remaining 2 acres of land. 2.18 That by letters dated 22.06.2015, 29.07.2015 and 14.09.2015, petitioner sought permission from - 8 - respondent Nos.1 and 2 to put up construction of 2,500 metric tons of godown on the said remaining 2 acres of land. 2.19 However, by Order dated 30.09.2015, respondent No.1 proceeded to forfeit 2 acres of land from the petitioner. 2.20 That the petitioner-Society issued a letter dated 05.10.2015 to the Concerned Minister requesting seeking cancellation of Order of Forfeiture dated 30.09.2015 issued by respondent No.1. 2.21 This followed up by subsequent correspondence dated 13.10.2015 and 20.10.2015. Pursuant to which, respondent No.3 conducted emergency meeting on 11.11.2015 and passed the resolution permitting the petitioner to put up construction of 2,500 metric tons capacity godown on remaining 2 acres of land. 2.22 That the respondent No.1, in the meanwhile had issued a circular dated 01.08.2016, directing respondent No.3 to take possession of 2 acres of land from the petitioner and utilize the same for the benefit of respondent No.2. - 9 - 2.23 That there is no 2 acres of vacant land available as claimed by respondent No.2. The land consists of transformer yard, borewell, electrical cable and is divided by high tension line. 2.24 Aggrieved by the orders dated 30.09.2015 and the circular dated 01.08.2016, petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.51354/2016 and interim order of stay was granted. That when the matter was pending and during COVID-19 pandemic situation, respondent No.3 written a letter dated 28.04.2021 to the petitioner- Society requesting to use road/land of the petitioner- Society to implement COVID-19 guidelines effectively. 2.25 By letter dated 29.04.2021, Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District had requested the petitioner-Society to utilise their land to implement COVID-19 guidelines. 2.26 That petitioner-Society by letter dated 05.05.2021 granted temporary permission to APMC, Kolar to use the said vacant land on a condition that same shall be returned after relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions. - 10 - 2.27 Subsequent to COVID-19 pandemic petitioner issued letters dated 24.12.2021, 03.11.2022 and 30.05.2023 requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar to remove the temporary illegal sets, put upon the land and to hand over the same as COVID-19 restrictions were relaxed. 2.28 Pursuant to which by communication dated 14.01.2022, Deputy Commissioner, Kolar issued a letter to respondent No.3-APMC directing to remove the temporary legal structures and to hand over the land to the petitioner. 2.29 In the meanwhile, the Commissioner, Department of Agriculture had written letter dated 07.01.2023 to the petitioner directing petitioner to store fertilizers under buffer stock scheme for the season 2022-2023. 2.30 By Order dated 01.03.2023, this Court allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.51354/2016 and directed respondent No.3-APMC to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner-Society. 2.31 Subsequent thereof, respondent No.3 issued notice dated 18.05.2023 to the petitioner stating that the forfeited 2 acres of land was allotted to respondent No.3. - 11 - 2.32 That petitioner by communication dated 25.05.2023 sought time to file objection to the said notice dated 18.05.2023. A second notice dated 30.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 stating that the 2 acres of land was forfeited on account of violation of the condition No.3 of the Order dated 13.03.1992 and additional conditions imposed in the communication dated 23.02.2005. 2.33 That on 16.06.2023, petitioner filed a statement of objection stating that he did not violate condition No.3 of Order dated 13.03.1992 or the additional conditions imposed in communication dated 23.02.2005. The petitioner-Society also pointed out that in the lease-cum- sale agreement dated 25.04.2005, condition No.27 provided, the petitioner-Society to utilize full land within 3 years from the date of sale deed and if the land was not utilized within the said period, the Marketing Committee shall have absolute right to forfeit the said land. 2.34 That since no sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner-Society, in terms of the condition No.27 of the - 12 - lease-cum-sale agreement under 25.04.2005, there was no question of any violation of the terms of allotment. 2.35 That the respondent No.3 was not ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, it has obstructed in petitioner putting up the construction over the land. 2.36 That respondent No.3, thereafter issued a notice dated 19.06.2023 fixing the meeting on 23.06.2023 at 11.30 a.m., to discuss about the disputed land in question. In the said meeting, the Deputy Commissioner Kolar acting as Administrator had resolved to inspect the spot on 26.06.2023 and to identify the land in question. 2.37 Accordingly, on 26.06.2023, the Deputy Commissioner conducted the spot inspection and identified the land in question in the presence of petitioner and respondent No.3. 2.38 However on 03.07.2023, without notice to the petitioner- Society, the Deputy Commissioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 had conducted meeting and passed an Order dated 06.07.2023 forfeiting the land in question. - 13 - 2.39 Accordingly, an order of forfeiture dated 10.07.2023, has been passed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 9(2) of the Karnataka Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1966"). 2.40 Being aggrieved, petitioner is before this court seeking quash of the aforesaid orders dated 03.07.2023, 06.07.2023 and 10.07.2023 and for direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to execute sale deed in terms of condition No.27 of the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 25.04.2005. 3. Objection statement has been filed by respondent No.3, contending inter-alia: 3.1 That the petitioner-Society had earlier challenged the order of forfeiture in W.P.No.51354/2016, which was disposed of, reserving liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate actions against the petitioner-Society for violation of Condition No.3 of Order dated 13.03.1992 passed by respondent No.1 and the additional condition imposed in Communication dated 23.02.2005 issued by respondent No.2. - 14 - 3.2 That in compliance with said order respondent No.3 had issued notice dated 18.05.2023 and second notice dated 30.05.2023. It is after issuance of second notice petitioner had submitted untenable written statement on 16.06.2023, for the first time taking up the specific ground of non-execution of sale deed in terms of the condition No.27 of lease cum sale agreement. 3.3 That in furtherance thereof, respondent No.3 had issued a notice on 19.06.2023 calling upon the petitioner to attend the meeting scheduled on 23.06.2023 and a joint inspection was conducted. In which, the land was identified in the presence of the petitioner. It is only thereafter, resolution dated 03.07.2023 was passed, resulting in order dated 10.07.2023, forfeiting the land. 3.4 Admittedly, petitioner was allotted 4 acres and 4 guntas of land and has not put up any construction as per condition No.3 of letter of Allotment dated 13.03.1992. 3.5 That condition No.4 of lease-cum-sale agreement specifically provides that in case of non-compliance of Condition Nos.1 to 3, the allotment stands cancelled. As such, respondent No.3 had exercised his rights under - 15 - Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966 and passed the order after providing opportunity to petitioner. 3.6 That though the petitioner claimed to have constructed cold storage, the same is not functioning. The power supply to the said cold storage has been disconnected for many years. A letter in this regard has been issued by the BESCOM. 3.7 That even the godown claimed to have been put up by the petitioner-Society has become defunct as no activities are being carried on. Petitioner had obtained stockist license up-to year 2006 to 2007 from the Marketing Committee to store notified agricultural produce in the cold storage, which has also not been renewed. 3.8 That no documents are furnished by the petitioner showing its turnover, indicating any activities being carried on the said land. That there are 652 licensed traders, 344 Commission Agents and other market functionaries carrying on the business in the market. There is an increased demand for notified agriculture products year after year, which has led to congestion of - 16 - loading and unloading, trading and moving of the vehicles causing inconvenience to the market users. 3.9 The un-utilized 2 acres of land is required to cater to the said requirement. That in terms of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2004'') which came into effect on 09.07.2004, two kinds of allotment are possible, one on lease-cum-sale basis, another on leave and license basis. 3.10 Allotment of land under lease-cum-sale basis is governed under Rule 10(ii) of the Rules, 2004. Rule 10(ii), provides for execution of lease-cum-sale agreement. Rule 10(vii) provides for execution of lease-cum-sale agreement after 10 years of the agreement not cancelled. As such, the Marketing Committee has no power to execute the sale deed directly without being lease-cum- sale agreement having spent its 10 years of period. 3.11 Reliance placed on to the condition No.27 is incorrect. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. - 17 - 4. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Chandrakanth R. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner- Society, reiterating the contents of the petition averments submitted; 4.1 That the impugned order forfeiting 2 acres of land out of 4 acres, has been passed in purported exercise of power under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966. 4.2 That Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966 does not give such power to the respondents to forfeit the land. That Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966 does not confer any power on the respondent No.3-Marketing Committee as an independent power to forfeit an already allotted land or to resume the right of an allottee on an allegation of non-utilization. 4.3 Power to deal with, hold, lease and sell or transfer the property cannot be equated with power to impose drastic consequences of forfeiture on the existing allottee. 4.4 That in the absence of precise source of power and authority demonstrate compliance with requirement of such power, respondent-Authority cannot rely upon the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966, enabling them - 18 - to forfeit the land which is not expressly conferred on them. 4.5 Power to possess and deal with property is different from power to forfeit the allotment already made. That if the respondent-Authority contend that forfeiture is permissible, they must establish precise statutory or contractual source of that power to satisfy the condition attached to it. If the source is allotment of condition or the lease cum sale agreement, respondents are bound to express the terms of the instrument and cannot invoke Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966 to enlarge the scope of the contractual power. 4.6 That Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966 cannot be used as a substitute for specific forfeiture provision and cannot be used to circumvent the limitation contained in lease cum sale agreement. 4.7 That even if the respondents seek to trace alleged forfeiting power to condition No.27 of the lease cum sale agreement dated 25.04.2005, condition necessary to invoke said clause has not been satisfied. Said conditions contemplate utilization of entire land within the stipulated - 19 - period from the date of execution of deed of sale and the deed of sale has never been executed. 4.8 As such, respondents cannot contend that contractual period commenced and expired, creating a default. Condition No.27 cannot be re-written by deleting the words relating to execution of deed of sale and substituting some other date as the commencement date. Contractual condition must be read as it stands. 4.9 That the petitioner himself had repeatedly sought for execution of deed of sale and authorities had directed execution of said deed of sale, failure to execute the deed of sale cannot be attributable to the petitioner. 4.10 That respondents having failed to perform their obligation of executing the sale cannot rely upon their failure to impose forfeiture on the petitioner. 4.11 That respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong. Even assuming their existing contractual power of forfeiture, in the absence of foundational jurisdiction fact, such exercise cannot be established. - 20 - 4.12 Non-utilization of land is baseless, as the respondent- authorities themselves had considered the proposal of the petitioner-Society for construction and had granted permission from time to time. 4.13 That Board of the respondent-APMC had also passed resolution permitting construction of 2,500 metric tons capacity of godown on the remaining 2 acres of land. The said documents are contemporaneous demonstrating the competent authorities themselves recognizing petitioner- Society's continuous entitlement and requirement to utilize the remaining land. 4.14 That respondents having accepted the proposal of petitioner-Society cannot contend to the contrary. That the portion of the land which is alleged to be vacant has been utilized by the petitioner for establishment of infrastructures including transformer facility, borewell electrical cables and High Tension lines and has been used as access, parking and sanctioned development of storage facilities. 4.15 That respondents were required to consider the actual physical and functional utilisation of the land, rather than - 21 - treating every portion upon which the building had not been completed as not utilized. 4.16 That petitioner-Society in their reply to the notice had raised the specific condition No.27 and non-execution of sale deed. Though inspection was conducted on 26.06.2023 and respondent proceeded with further deliberation on 03.07.2023, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. 4.17 That the material objections raised to the petitioner have not been addressed. Even assuming there was some deficiency or delay in development, the same cannot result in drastic consequences of forfeiting 2 acres of land after more than 3 decades of possession, which is disproportionate. Petitioner is a Co-operative institution catering to the requirement of general public. 4.18 Respondents cannot misread the liberty granted by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Such liberty cannot be used to dispense with the jurisdiction, natural justice and proper interpretation of lease cum sale agreement and consideration of petitioner's objection. - 22 - Contending as above, sought for allowing of the petition. 5. Sri. P. S. Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted; 5.1 That the power of forfeiture in instant case is emanating from condition Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 of letter of Allotment dated 13.03.1992, in terms of which, petitioner-Society was required to construct cold storage within 2 years, failing which, it was explicitly provided that the land allotted would be forfeited. 5.2 Referring to condition Nos.2, 3, 4, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 and 27 of the lease cum sale agreement dated 25.04.2005, submitted that conditions imposed in letter of Allotment requiring construction of cold storage has been reiterated in condition Nos.22, 23 and 26. 5.3 Referring to condition No.27, he submitted that the said conditions cannot be read in isolation to the conditions enumerating in the allotment letter and under condition Nos.22, 23 and 26. - 23 - 5.4 That the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.51354/2016 and submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the said order had considered the power vested with the respondent-Marketing Committee to forfeit the land under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966, subject to the approval of the Director of the respondent-Agricultural Committee. 5.5 That recognizing such power, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed respondent No.3 to initiate proceeding against the petitioner for violation of the condition No.3 of the order dated 13.03.1992 and the said order has attained finality. Therefore, it was not open for the petitioner-Society to question the forfeiture made by the respondent-Authorities under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966. 5.6 That admittedly out of 4 acres of land allotted, only 2 acres of land has been utilized by the petitioner. That the land was allotted for the purpose of construction of cold storage. However, the petitioner-Society has sought to divert the utilization. - 24 - 5.7 Referring to the reply notice issued by the respondents as per Annexure-ZD3 submitted that even according to the petitioner-Society they were unable to utilise the entire extent of land and that they had temporarily suspended the Cold storage facility as there was no demand. 5.8 That the decision to forfeit the land has preceded by issuance of two notices, joint spot inspection and only thereafter the impugned order has been passed and therefore, petitioner-Society cannot find fault with the exercise of power conferred. As such, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia Vs. State of Bihar and Another1 to submit that the terms of the agreement are required to be read harmoniously and logically. That if there is a conflict between the earlier clauses or the later clauses, it is the earlier clauses that would prevail over the later clauses. 7. He further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiva Chander More and Others Vs. 1 AIR 2024 SC 1071 - 25 - Lieutenant Governor and Others2 to submit that the petitioner-Society cannot raise the question of respondent-Committee not having power to forfeit under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966, inasmuch as in the earlier writ petition the said question was considered and the matter was remitted to the respondent-Committee for fresh consideration. As such, the earlier order would operate as a constructive res-judicata. 8. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ARCE Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., and others3, he submitted that as a rule and judicial policy, Court shall not allow a litigant to take inconsistent position to gain advantage through aid of judicial proceedings. 9. That the petitioner who had admittedly not utilized 2 acres of land even after three decades of allotment cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate and the case of the petitioner would suffer from principles of acquiescence and estoppel. In this regard, he relied upon 2 (2014) 11 SCC 744 3 (2022) 2 SCC 221 - 26 - the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. N. Murugesan and others4. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. Annexure-A to the writ petition is an allotment letter dated 13.03.1992, in terms of which, petitioner was allotted 4 acres and 4 guntas of land admittedly for the purpose of construction of a cold storage. The said letter of allotment with the conditions attached thereto, reads as under: '' '' '' '' ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಕಾಟಕ ಸರ ಾರ ಸರ ಾರ ಸರ ಾರ ಸರ ಾರ ಕೃ ಕೃ ಕೃ ಕೃ ಾಾಟ ಾಾಟ ಾಾಟ ಾಾಟ ಇಾೆ ಇಾೆ ಇಾೆ ಇಾೆ ಕೃ ಾಾಟ ೇಶಕರ ಕೇ, ನಂ.16, 11ೇ ಾಜಭವನ ರೆ ¦.©. £ÀA - 2309 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560001. «µÀAiÀÄ: PÀÈ.G.ªÀiÁ.¸À PÉÆïÁgÀ-PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀĺÁ ಮಂಡ" AiÀÄ«Äತ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ಇವ%ೆ ಾರುPÀmÉÖ 'ಾ(ಂಗಣದ,- 4 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ£ÀÄß 0ೕಥಲ UÀȺÀ '/ಸಲು ಾಾಟ ಾಡುವ ಕುತು. G¯ÉèÃR : 1) F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀȪÀiÁE:12:C©üPÉ: 91, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.07.1991. 2) ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ PÀ.gÁ.¸À. ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀÄ3ಾ ಮಂಡ" ¤AiÀÄ«Äw, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ CgÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: JAr:¦J:196:91-92, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.03.1992. 3) ಜಂ4 ೇಶಕರು, ಕೃ' ಾPÀಇ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ಇವರ ವರ5 5ಾಂಕ: 13-3-1992. ೋಾರ ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಾರುPÀmÉÖ 'ಾ(ಂಗಣದ,-, 0ೕಥಲ UÀȺÀ ಾಣ ಾಡಲು ಕಾಟಕ gÁdå ಸಹ ಾರ ಾಾಟ ಮ3ಾ ಮಂಡ", ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ ;ೆಂಗಳ=ರು ಇವ%ೆ £ÉÊgÀÄvÀå ಮ>ಾೆಯ,- (ೌvï'AೆBC) 4 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ£ÀÄß 'ಾ(ಂಗಣದ ನPÉëAiÀÄ°è «ªÀgÀAಾD ¤Ã° §tÚ¢AzÀ ಗುರುEFರುವ ಕGೆ%ೆ, ºÁUÀÆ ನದ ಜ/ೕ%ೆ 3ೋD ಬರಲು C£ÀÄPÀÆ®Aಾಗುವಂ>ೆ ದIಣ ಬ5ಯ,- ಾ®Æರು ರೆ%ೆ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ 40x110 Cr d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ 20,000-00 gÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½¼ÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÀȶ GvÀà£Àß ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ (¤) PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1966gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt 9(2) gÀrAiÀÄ°è C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. 4 (2022) 2 SCC 25 - 27 - 1) ಸದ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ°è ಗುರುEFರುವ ¥Àæ ಾರ 4 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನು ಮತು ರೆ /ಸಲು 40X110 ಅK ಜ/ೕನ£ÀÄß ಸದ ಮಂಡ"%ೆ ೊಡುವ ಬ%ೆL ಸ/Eಯು ಒNO ¸ÀÆPÀÛ oÀgÁªÀÅ 'ಾಸು ಾಡ;ೇಕು. 2) ¸ÀzÀj ಜ/ೕನನು9 Pಾವ ಉೆQೕಶ ಾD ೕಡಾDೆAiÉÆà ಅೇ ಉzÉÝÃಶPÁÌV ಉಪSೕD¸À;ೇಕು. ಈ ಜ/ೕನ ;ೆೆಯ£ÀÄß PಾವUೇ ಾರಣ5ಂದ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ಾVೆ C£ÀéAiÀÄ PಾವUೇ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀĪÀÅ ºÉaѹzÀ°è D ºÉaÑ£À ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸Àj ¸ÀªÀiÁ£ÀªÁV ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½ÃAiÀĪÀgÉà ¨sÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ, C©üªÀÈ¢Ý RZÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁQzÀ°è CªÀgÉà ¨sÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 3) ಸದ ಜ/ೕನ,- ²Ãy® UÀȺÀªÀ£ÀÄß JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÉƼÀUÉ /ಸ;ೇಕು. F CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ²Ãy® UÀȺÀ ¤«Äð¸À¢zÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄlÄÖUÉÆÃ®Ä ºÁQPÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð C¢üPÁgÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 4) ಒಂದು AೇWೆ ಸದ ಮಂಡ"ಯುವ%ೆ ಮಂdÆರು ಾKರುವ ಜ/ೕನು 0ೕಥಲ UÀȺÀ /ಸಲು ;ೇ ಾDಲ-Aೆಂದು Eೕ ಾನ >ೆ%ೆದು ೊಂಡF ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಾರುಕXೆC ಸ/E%ೆ YಂEರುDಸ;ೇಕು. 5) ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ GzÉÝñÀUÀ½UÁV °Ã¸ï: ªÀiÁgÁl EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄßPಾವUೇ ಾರಣPÀÆÌ ªÀiÁqÀPÀÆqÀzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ಮ3ಾ ಮಂಡ½AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ತಮ೬ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÁAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ°è ¤«Äð¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¸À«ÄwUÉ »AwgÀÄw¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÁÌV ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl: °Ã¸ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAw®è. 6) F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ GzÀ㫹zÀ°è PÀȶ ªÀiÁgÁl ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ wêÀiÁð£ÀªÉà CAwªÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. 7) ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PಾವUೇ ಒಂದು ಕಾರುಗಳನು9 ಸದ ಮಂಡ"ಯುವರು G®èAX¹zÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄlÄÖUÉÆÃ®Ä ºÁQPÉƼÀî®Ä PÀȶ GvÀà£Àß ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð C¢üPÁgÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Nೕ,ನ ಎಾ- ಕಾರುಗ"%ೆ ಾನುನ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ,[ತ ಒಪ8ಂದ ಪGೆದು ನಂತರ ಜ/ೕನನ ಹಾಂತಸಲು ಸ/E%ೆ ಆೇಶ ೕಡಾDೆ. ¨sÀÆ«Ä ಉಪSೕಗದ ಬUÉÎ ಪ(E Eಂಗಳ] ಪ(ಗE ವರ5 ಸ,-ಸಲು ಸ/E%ೆ E"ಸಾDೆ. ಈ ಕೇAiÀÄ ಆೇಶದ ¸ÀASÉå ಕೃ ಾಇ: 12 : ಅ^ ೆ : 91 5ಾಂಕ: 5-7-1901 £ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ಸY- ^' F±ÀégÀ¥Àà ೇಶಕರು.'' 12. Condition No.3 as noted above, specifically commands petitioner-Society to construct cold storage within two years from the date of allotment. It also specifically provides failure on the part of the petitioner-Society to comply with the said condition would result in forfeiture of - 28 - the land and such power is exclusively vested with the Marketing Committee. 13. Condition No.4, further indicate that if the petitioner decides not to put up the cold storage on the land allotted, it has to surrender the allotted land to the respondent-Marketing Committee. 14. Lease cum sale agreement, which has been executed on 25.04.2005, further provides for following condition Nos.2, 3, 4, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27, which reads as under: "2) The site/land allotted infavour of the allottee is impartiable (non-divisible) under any or all circumstances and as such remains always intact. The allottee shall hereby undertake to commence and complete the construction of shop/shop- cum-godown on the site/land before the time prescribed hereinafter as per designs approved by the Market committee. 3) The allottee shall apply as early as possible within 1 month from the date of this agreement to the A.P.M.C. Kolar, to obtain sanctioned plari and licence for construction of the building on the site/land, and shall complete the construction within 1 year from the date of agreement or within the period extended by the committee. 4) On non-compliance with any of the clause Form No.1 to 3 above in its entirely or partially, the allotment of site/land to the allottee shall stand automatically cancelled and consequently the possession of the site/tand along with incomplete building shall also stand delivered to the market committee without any formalities in that behalf and without any consent of the defaulter allottee. The amount already paid to the market committee towards the cost of the site/land by the allottee shall also stand forfeited infavour of the market committee. … 17. On the expiry of the ten years period mentioned in this agreement. If the lessee has performed all the conditions - 29 - mentioned in this agreement and has committed no breach thereof the committee shall, at the end of the said period of ten years sell the site/land to the lessee and all the attendant expenses in connection with such Sales such as, Stamp duty, registration charges etc., shall be borne by the lessee. 18. The allottee will be liable for all damages caused to the building which amount will be recovered from him by the Committee as part of capital investment. The committee has the right to recover all costs of repairs as part of capital investment. 19. The Chairman or Secretary or any authorized person of the committee will have the right of entry to the premises for discovery, inspection as to the condition and use of the building. In case of any dispute or claim arising under this agreement or in consequences thereof, it is agreed between the parties that such dispute or claim shall be decided as "Sole Arbitrator" by the Director of Agricultural Marketing of the State of Karnataka Functioning as such-on the day and the decision of the Sole Arbitrator on such dispute, functioning as per provisions of the Indian Arbitrator Indian Arbitrator Act shall be be final and binding on the parties. .. 21. That the schedule land will be used only for the purpose for which it is sanctioned. For any reason, any Court increases or enhances the payment of compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, then such enhanced compensation for the sanctioned had will be born-ed by the Federation and any development charges and other taxes leived by the Local authorities shall be borned by the Federation. 22. That the Cold storage will be constructed within a period of two years. That if the cold storage is not completed within the time, then the committee (A.P.M.C.) will have the right of forfeiture. 23. That in the event of the decision by the Federation, that the construction of the Cold Storage shall not be taken up, then the said land will be surrendered to the A.P.M.C. .. 26. That in the event of violation of any of the conditions by the Federation, then the land granted along with the structures in the event of of violation of any of the standing thereon shall be forfeited by the Committee and the Committee shall have the full powers for such purpose. 27. The Direction of Agriculture Marketing Department have been passed Final order in his order No. SMD 4241ABK: 2002, dated: 23-02-2005 that the Federation shall utilize the full land with in 3 years from the date of sale deed. If the Land is not utilize within the said period the Market Committee shall have obsolete right to forfeit the said band.'' - 30 - 15. Condition Nos.22, 23 and 26 are mere reiteration of the condition contained in the Allotment Letter dated 13.03.1992. In other words, petitioner allottee was required to put up cold storage construction within the time stipulated, failing which, would result in forfeiture of the said land by the respondent-Marketing Committee, which has full power for the said purpose. 16. Thus the aforesaid letter of Allotment and lease-cum- Sale Agreement confers substantial contractual power with the respondent-Marketing Committee to forfeit the land, in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner- Society to fulfill the conditions of putting up the cold storage construction, within the time stipulated thereunder. 17. There is no dispute that even to this date, the petitioner- Society has utilised only 2 acres of land and the remaining 2 acres of land has fallen vacant. Though a plea sought to be raised, that the remaining 2 acres of land is being utilised for putting up ancillary infrastructure to cater to the requirement of existing cold storage, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for - 31 - the respondents, same would not amount to utilisation of entire 4 acres of land for the purpose to which it was allotted. 18. A reply notice issued by a petitioner on 16.06.2023 as per Annexure-ZD3, relevant portion of which are extracted hereunder: "ಕಾಟಕ ಾಜ` ಸಹ ಾರ ಾಾಟ ಮ3ಾಮಂಡಳ ಯ/ತ # 8. ಕ9ಂa3ಾ`b ರೆ, ;ೆಂಗಳ=ರು - 560 052. ಅಂcೆ 'ೆ4C%ೆ ಸಂೆ` - 130. ¸ÀASÉå: EJ£ïf/¯ÁåAqï/2023-24/E-4/53 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.06.2023 UÉ, ಾಯದ0ಗಳ], ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಾರುಕXೆC ಸ/E ಾರುಕXೆC 'ಾ(ಂಗಣ. PÉÆïÁgÀ-563101. ಸಮdಾV ಪತ( eಷಯ: ಕಾಟಕ ಾಜ` ಸಹ ಾರ ಾಾಟ ಮ3ಾಮಂಡಳ ., ;ೆಂಗಳ=ರು ರವ%ೆ ೋಾರ ಎ.g.ಎಂ.F ಆವರಣದ,- ಹಂh ೆPಾDರುವ 4 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ 'ೈj 2 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಮುಟುC%ೋಲು 3ಾj ೊಳ]kವ ಸಲುAಾD >ಾವU ಕಳ]Yಸಾದ Eಳ]ವ" ೆ ಪತ(ದ ಬ%ೆL G¯ÉèÃR: 1) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀ ¢:01.03.2023 (WP No.51354/2016). 2) ತಮO ಕೇ Eಳ]ವ" ೆ ಪತ( ಸಂೆ`: ಕೃಉ ಾಸ: ೋ/95/2023-24. 5ಾಂಕ: 18.05.2023. 3) F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå; EJ£ïf/36/2023-24, ¢£ÁAPÀ 25.05.2023. 4) ತಮO ಕೇ Eಳ]ವ" ೆ ಪತ( ಸಂೆ`: ಕೃಉ ಾಸ: ೋ/115/2023-24, 5: 30.05.2023. …………………………………………………………………………….………..ಮ3ಾಮಂಡಳವU ತನ%ೆ ಹಂh ೆPಾದ 4 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ 'ೈj 2 ಎಕೆ dಾಗದ,- 2500 N.ಟn ಾಮಥ`ದ 0ೕತಲಗೃಹವನು9 1995-96ೇ ಾ,ನ,- /F ಾPಾರಂಭ ಾKರುತೆ. ಆ ಸಂದಭದ,-, ಮಂಡಳ ೆo ಹಂh ೆ ಾಡಾದ ಜ/ೕನ ಒಂದು ಅಂhನ,-, ಾಲೂರು ರೆಯ ಕGೆ%ೆ Xಾ(np qಾಮr Pಾsನು9 ಈ Yಂೆ /ಸಾDರುತೆ. ಈ Pಾsಂದ 0ೕತಲಗೃಹ ೆo ೇಬtಗಳನು9 ಭೂ/ಯ ಒಳಗGೆ ಅಳವKಸಾDರುತೆ. ಜ/ೕನ ಮಧ` vಾಗದ,- ;ೋrAೆt ೊೆF, ಈ ೕರನು9 ಉಪSೕಗ ಾoD ಬಳF ೊಳkಾಗುEತು. ಈ Yಂೆ ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಾರುಕXೆC ಸ/E, ೋಾರರವರ ಸೂಚೆಯಂ>ೆ ಾಲೂರು ರೆVಂದ 0ೕತಲಗೃಹ ೆo ರೆ 3ಾಗೂ ಾಂ'ೌಂsನು9 /ಸಾDರುತೆ. ಮುಖ`AಾD ಮಂಡಳ ೆo ಹಂh ೆ ಾಡಾದ ಜ/ೕನ ಮಧ` vಾಗದ,- ಈ Yಂೆ ೆ.g.4.F.ಎt ರವರ 3ೆy.4 eದು`z ತಂE 3ಾದು 3ೋDದುQ, ೆ.g.4.F.ಎt ರವರ ಸೂಚೆಯಂ>ೆ - 32 - ಈ eದು`z ೈನುಗಳ ಮಧ`vಾಗ5ಂದ ಪ(E ಕGೆ 60 ಅK eFೕಣದ,- ಕಟCಡಗಳನು9 ಕಟCಲು ಅನುಮE ಇರುವU5ಲ-. ಆದ ಾರಣ Aಾಹನಗಳ ಾಗ ಪಥ, 'ಾjಂa ಇತೆ ವ`ವೆ{ಯನು9 ಗ5ಪKF ಸೂಕ ವ`ವೆ{ಯನು9 ಕ,8ಸುವ ಸಲುAಾD ಉ"ದ dಾಗದ,- ಹಂತ ಹಂತAಾD ಅ|ವೃ5} ೆಲಸಗಳನು9 ೈ%ೊಳkಲು Eೕ ಾF, ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ ಕ(ಯ ಕ(ಯ ಕ(ಯ ಕ(ಯ ಪತ( ಪತ( ಪತ( ಪತ( ಾK ೊಡಲು ಾK ೊಡಲು ಾK ೊಡಲು ಾK ೊಡಲು ಾಯದ0 ಾಯದ0 ಾಯದ0 ಾಯದ0, ಕೃ ಕೃ ಕೃ ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಉತ8ನ9 ಉತ8ನ9 ಉತ8ನ9 ಾರುಕXೆC ಾರುಕXೆC ಾರುಕXೆC ಾರುಕXೆC ಸ/E ಸ/E ಸ/E ಸ/E, ೋಾರ ೋಾರ ೋಾರ ೋಾರ ರವರನು9 ರವರನು9 ರವರನು9 ರವರನು9 ಹಲವU ಹಲವU ಹಲವU ಹಲವU ಪತ(ಗಳ ಪತ(ಗಳ ಪತ(ಗಳ ಪತ(ಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ ೋರಾDರುತೆ ೋರಾDರುತೆ ೋರಾDರುತೆ ೋರಾDರುತೆ. ಆದೆ ಸ/Eಯು PಾವUೇ ಕ(ಮವYFರುವU5ಲ-. ಹಂh ೆPಾದ ಜ/ೕನ 'ೈj ಾ, ಇದQ dಾಗದ,- ಇತೆ ಅ|ವೃ5} ೆಲಸಗಳನು9 ೈ%ೊಳkಲು ಸ~ಂತ ಬಂಡAಾಳವU ಆ ಸಮಯದ,- ಇರದ ಾರಣ ಮಂಡಳವU ಸದ dಾಗದ,- 1000 N.ಟn ಾಮಥ`ದ 2 %ೋಾಮುಗಳನು9 /ಸುವ Sೕಜೆಯ ಪ(ಾವೆಯನು9 ಸ ಾರ ೆo ಕಳ]YF, ಆ•ಕ ಸ3ಾಯವನು9 ೋರುತೆ. ಅ|ವೃ5} ೆಲಸಗಳನು9 ೈ%ೊಳkಲು ಹಣ ಾಸು ಸಂೆ{ಗಳನು9 ಸಂಪjFಾಗ ಹಂh ೆPಾದ ಜ/ೕನ ಶುದ} ಕ(ಯಪತ(ವನು9 ಸ,-ಸುವಂ>ೆ E"ಸಾDರುತೆ. ಕ(ಯಪತ( eಳಂಬ5ಂಾD ಮಂಡಳದ ಸಂಪ€ಣ Sೕಜೆಯ ಅನು•ಾ‚ನದ,- eಳಂಬAಾDರುತೆ. ಹಂh ೆPಾದ ಉೆQೕಶ ಾoDƒೕ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಬಳF ೊಂKದQಂದ ಮಂಡಳದ 3ೆಸ%ೆ ಜ/ೕನ ಕ(ಯಪತ( ೋಂದ„ ಾK ೊಡುವಂ>ೆ ತಮOನು9 ಹಲವU ;ಾ ೋರಾDರುತೆ. ಮಂಡಳವU ತಮ%ೆ 3ಾಗೂ ೇಶಕರು, ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಾರುXೆC ಇಾೆ ಕಳ]YF, ಮ3ಾಮಂಡಳವU ಎn.F.K.F ಸಂೆ{ಯ ರವಗೂ ಕೂಡ ಹಲವU ಪತ(ಗಳನು9 ಧನಸ3ಾಯ5ಂದ ೈತರ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಾoD ಕೃ 3ಾಗೂ %ೊಬ…ರ ಉತ8ನ9ಗಳನು9 †ೇಖಸಲು %ೋಾಮುಗಳನು9 /ಸಲು ಧFದುQ, ಜ/ೕನ,- ಹಂತ ಹಂತAಾD ಅ|ವೃ5} ೆಲಸಗಳನು9 ೈ%ೊಳkಲು ಮಂಡಳ ೆo ಾಾವ ಾಶವನು9 ೕಡ;ೇ ೆಂದು ೋರಾDರುತೆ. ಸ/Eಯು ತನ9 ಸvೆ 5ಾಂಕ: 29.11.2001 ರ,- Eೕ ಾFರುವಂ>ೆ 3ಾಗೂ ೇಶಕರು. ಕೃ ಾಾಟ ಇಾೆ ರವರು 5ಾಂಕ: 06.11.2001ರ ಪತ(ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಸಮOE ೕKರುವಂ>ೆ ಮಂಡಳದ ಅ|ವೃ5} ಾಮ%ಾಗಳ ಪ4C ಮತು 'ಾ-nಗಳನು9 ಸ/E%ೆ ಸ,-ಸಲು ೋದQರ Nೕೆ%ೆ ಮಂಡಳವU 5ಾಂಕ: 27.04.2002ರ ಪತ(ೊಂ5%ೆ, ಹಂh ೆ ಾಡಾದ ಜ/ೕನ,- ೈತ%ೆ ಅನುಕೂಲಕರAಾದ ೕEಯ,- ಅ|ವೃ5}ಪKಸಲು ಾಸCr 'ಾ-nನು9 ಲಗEF. ಅನು‡ೕದೆ ೕಡ;ೇ ೆಂದು 3ಾಗೂ ಮಂಡಳದ 3ೆಸ%ೆ ಜ/ೕನ ಕ(ಯಪತ(ವನು9 ಾK ೊಡ;ೇ ೆಂದು ೋರಾDರುತೆ. ಮಂಡಳವU ಕಳ]YFದ ಾಸCr 'ಾ-n%ೆ 5ಾಂಕ: 10.05.2002 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ oÀgÁªÀÅ ¸ÀASÉå 6(1) gÀ°è ೕKರುವUಾD ೋಾರ ಎ.g.ಎಂ.F ಾಯದ0ರವರು 5ಾಂಕ: 28.05.2002ರ ಪತ(ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಮಂಡಳ ೆo E"Fರು>ಾೆ. ನಂತರದ,- 1000 N.ಟn ಾಮಥ`ದ %ೋಾಮನು9 ಮಂಡಳವU /Fರುತೆ. ೋಾರ ಎ.g.ಎಂ.F ಆವರಣದ,- 4 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಮಂಡಳ ೆo ಹಂh ೆ ಾKದ ಅವˆVಂದ 13 ವಷದ ನಂತರ ೋಾರ ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಾಾಟ ಸ/Eಯ 5ಾಂಕ:25.04.2005 ರಂದು ಮಂಡಳ ೆo ,ೕB-ಕಂ-ೇt ಅD(Nಂ‰ನು9 ಮಂಡಳದ ಒ>ಾಯದ Nೕೆ%ೆ ಾK ೊ4Cರುತೆ. ಸದ ,ೕB-ಕಂ- ೇt ಆD(Nಂ‰ನು9 5ಾಂಕ: 29.04.2005 ರಂದು ಉಪೋಂದŠಾˆ ಾ, ೋಾರದ,- ೋಂದ„ ಾKಸಾDರುತೆ. ,ೕB ,ೕB ,ೕB ,ೕB-ಕಂ ಕಂ ಕಂ ಕಂ-ೇt ೇt ೇt ೇt ಅD(Nಂ4ನ ಅD(Nಂ4ನ ಅD(Nಂ4ನ ಅD(Nಂ4ನ ಷರತು ಷರತು ಷರತು ಷರತು ಸಂೆ` ಸಂೆ` ಸಂೆ` ಸಂೆ`:27ರರರರ ಪ( ಾರ ಪ( ಾರ ಪ( ಾರ ಪ( ಾರ ಕ(ಯಪತ( ಕ(ಯಪತ( ಕ(ಯಪತ( ಕ(ಯಪತ( ಾKದ ಾKದ ಾKದ ಾKದ 5ಾಂ 5ಾಂ 5ಾಂ 5ಾಂಕ5ಂದ ಕ5ಂದ ಕ5ಂದ ಕ5ಂದ 3 ವಷದ ವಷದ ವಷದ ವಷದ ಒಳ%ೆ ಒಳ%ೆ ಒಳ%ೆ ಒಳ%ೆ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಸಂಪ€ಣAಾD ಸಂಪ€ಣAಾD ಸಂಪ€ಣAಾD ಸಂಪ€ಣAಾD ಉಪSೕDಸತಕoದುQ ಉಪSೕDಸತಕoದುQ ಉಪSೕDಸತಕoದುQ ಉಪSೕDಸತಕoದುQ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇರುತೆ ಇರುತೆ ಇರುತೆ ಇರುತೆ. ಆದೆ ಆದೆ ಆದೆ ಆದೆ ಅಂ5ಂದ ಅಂ5ಂದ ಅಂ5ಂದ ಅಂ5ಂದ EA¢£ÀªÀgÉUÀÆ PÉÆïÁgÀ ಎgಎಂF ಎgಎಂF ಎgಎಂF ಎgಎಂF ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ ಮಂಡಳದ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ 3ೆಸ%ೆ PಾವUೇ PಾವUೇ PಾವUೇ PಾವUೇ ೕEಯ ೕEಯ ೕEಯ ೕEಯ ಕ(ಯಪತ(ವನು9 ಕ(ಯಪತ(ವನು9 ಕ(ಯಪತ(ವನು9 ಕ(ಯಪತ(ವನು9 ಾK ೊ4CರುವU5ಲ- ಾK ೊ4CರುವU5ಲ- ಾK ೊ4CರುವU5ಲ- ಾK ೊ4CರುವU5ಲ-. ಮಂಡಳವU ಮಂಡಳವU ಮಂಡಳವU ಮಂಡಳವU ಜ/ೕನ ಜ/ೕನ ಜ/ೕನ ಜ/ೕನ ಸಂಪ€ಣ ಸಂಪ€ಣ ಸಂಪ€ಣ ಸಂಪ€ಣ ಹಕoನು9 ಹಕoನು9 ಹಕoನು9 ಹಕoನು9 3ೊಂ5ರದ 3ೊಂ5ರದ 3ೊಂ5ರದ 3ೊಂ5ರದ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಆ•ಕ ಆ•ಕ ಆ•ಕ ಆ•ಕ ಸಂೆ{ಗ"ಂದ ಸಂೆ{ಗ"ಂದ ಸಂೆ{ಗ"ಂದ ಸಂೆ{ಗ"ಂದ ಧನ ಧನ ಧನ ಧನ ಸ3ಾಯವU ಸ3ಾಯವU ಸ3ಾಯವU ಸ3ಾಯವU ೊರjರುವU5ಲ- ೊರjರುವU5ಲ- ೊರjರುವU5ಲ- ೊರjರುವU5ಲ-. ಈ ಾರಣ5ಂದ ಮಂಡಳವU ಉ"ದ 2 ಎಕೆ dಾಗದ,- ಅ|ವೃ5} ೆಲಸಗಳನು9 ಪ€ಣ ಪ( ಾಣದ,- ಹಂತ ಹಂತAಾD ೈ%ೊಳkಲು ಾಧ`AಾDರುವU5ಲ-. ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಮ3ಾಮಂಡಳವU ತನ9,-ದQಂತಹ ಸ~ಂತ ಬಂಡAಾಳವನು9 ಉಪSೕDF ೊಂಡು ಉ"ದ 2 ಎಕೆ dಾಗದ,- 2500 N.ಟn ಾಮಥ`ದ Gೆ‹Œ-ಇn %ೋಾಮು /ಸಲು ಅK'ಾಯ 3ಾಕಾDರುತೆ. ಅದರ Aಾಸವ>ೆಯನು9 ಸಹ >ಾವU ಸ{ಳ ಪ0ೕಲೆ - 33 - ಸಂದಭದ,- ಗಮF5Qೕ. ಎgಎಂF ೋಾರ ರವರು %ೋಾ/ನ ಾಮ%ಾಯನು9 ಮುಂದುವಸೆ ತGೆ ಾKದQಂದ ಾಮ%ಾಯನು9 ಈ ಹಂತದ,- ,-ಸಾDರುತೆ. …………………………… ೋಾರ ಎ.g.ಎಂ.F ರವರು ,ೕB-ಕಂ-ೇt ಅD(Nಂ‰ ನ ಷರತು ನಂ.27ರ ಪ( ಾರ ಮಂಡಳದ 3ೆಸ%ೆ ಜ/ೕನ ಕ(ಯಪತ(ವನು9 ಾK ೊಡೆ ಉೆQೕಶಪ€ವಕAಾD 5ಾಂಕ:22.02.2012ರ ಪತ(ದ,- ಉ"ದ 2 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನನು9 Aಾಪಸುp ೇ"ರುEೕ. ಎರಡು ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ,- ಈ%ಾಗೇ ಮ3ಾಮಂಡಳದ ಸ~ಂತ ಬಂಡAಾಳವನು9 ಬಳF ೊಂಡು ಹಂತ ಹಂತAಾD ಅ|ವೃ5} ಾಯಗಳನು9 ೈ%ೊಳ]kEರುತೆ (ಎgಎಂFರವರು ಅ|ವೃ5} ಾಯಗಳನು9 ೈ%ೊಳkಲು ಆಡಚŠೆ ಾಡುEರುವ ಾರಣ ಮುಂದುವೆಸಲು ಾಧ`AಾDರುವU5ಲ-). ಆದ ಾರಣ ಉ"ದ 2 ಎಕೆ dಾಗವನು9 Aಾಪಸುp ೕಡುವ ಪ(†ೆ9 ಉದ•eಸುವU5ಲ-. ……………………………………………. ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಾರುಕXೆC ಸ/Eರವರ ಮ>ೊಂದು ಸvೆ 5ಾಂಕ: 11.11.2015ರ,- 2 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಮಂಡಳದ ಸುಪˆಯೆ-ೕ ಮುಂದುವೆಸಲು ಒg8 Eೕ ಾF ಸŽಮ 'ಾ(ˆ ಾರದ ಆನುಮE ಪGೆಯಲು ೋರಾDರುತೆ. ಆದರೂ ಸಹ 5ಾಂಕ:30.09.2015 ರಂದು ಸ ಾರದ ಆˆೕನ ಾಯದ0, ಸಹ ಾರ ಇಾೆ ಇವ%ೆ PಾವUೇ ೕEಯ ಸŽಮ ಅˆ ಾರ ಇಲ-5ದQರೂ ಸಹ ಎರಡು ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಮರ" ಸ/Eಯು ವಶ ೆo ಪGೆಯಲು ಆೇಶ 3ೊರKFರು>ಾೆ. ಈ ಆೇಶದ eರುದ} ಮಂಡಳವU ಾನ` ಉಚ• ಾ`Pಾಲಯದ,- ‰ ಅ• ಸಂೆ`:51354/2016 ಸ,-Fರುತೆ. ಈ ‰ ಅ•ಯ 5ಾಂಕ:01.03.2023ರ ಆೇಶದ,- ಾನ` ಉಚ• ಾ`PಾಲಯವU ಎ.g.ಎಂ.F ಾƒQಯ,- ಸ ಾರದ ಾಯದ0%ೆ ಆೇಶ ಾಡಲು ಅˆ ಾರeಲ-Aೆಂದು E"F, 5ಾಂಕ: 30.09.2015ರ ಆೇಶವನು9 ರದುQ%ೊ"F, ಾಯದ0, ೋಾರ ಎgಎಂF ರವ%ೆ ಮಂಡಳ ೆo 3ೊಸಾD ೋ4ೕB dಾ ಾಡಲು ಅವ ಾಶವನು9 ಕ,8ಸಾDರುತೆ. ಸದ ಆೇಶದ ಅನುಾರ >ಾವU Eಳ]ವ" ೆ ಪತ(ಗಳನು9 ಮಂಡಳ ೆo ಕಳ]YF, ಸಮdಾV ೊಡಲು E"FರುEೕ. ……………………………… ಮಂಡಳವU /Fದ 0ೕತಲಗೃಹವನು9 2007-08 ¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ಉಪSೕDಸಾDರುತೆ. ನಂತರದ,- >ೋಟ%ಾ ಾ ;ೆWೆಗWಾದ D®ÆಗGೆ‘ ;ೆWೆಯುವವರ ಪ( ಾಣ ಕKNPಾದ ಾರಣ 3ಾಗೂ 0ೕತಲಗೃಹದ ;ೇK ೆಯು ಕುFತ%ೊಂಡ ಾರಣ. 0ೕತಲಗೃಹವನು9 >ಾ>ಾo,ಕAಾD ಸ{Dತ%ೊ"ಸಾDರುತೆ. ………………………………….. ೋಾರ ಎ.g.ಎಂ.F ಆವರಣದ,- ಸ ಾರದ ೋes-19ನ ಾ ಾ•ಕ ಅಂತರದ ಾಗಸೂhಗಳನು9 ಸಮಪಕAಾD ಅನು•ಾ‚ನ ಾಡಲು ಸ{Wಾವ ಾಶ ಅvಾವeದುQ, ಸ ಾರದ ಆೇಶದಂ>ೆ ಕ(ಮ ೈ%ೊಳkಲು 3ೆh•ನ ಸ{Wಾವ ಾಶ ;ೇ ಾDರುವUದಂದ ಸದ ಆವರಣದ,- ಮಂಡಳ ೆo ಹಂh ೆPಾDರುವ 4 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ 'ೈj >ಾವU ಉೆ-ೕ[Fರುವ 2 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನನು9 >ಾ>ಾo,ಕAಾD ವ`ವೆ{ Nೕೆ%ೆ ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9ಗಳ Aಾ`'ಾರ ವYAಾ4%ೆ ಅನುಕೂಲAಾಗುವಂ>ೆ ಎ.g.ಎಂ.F PÉÆïÁgÀ gÀªÀjUÉ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸À®Ä vÀÄvÁðV C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ •ಾ-ˆ ಾಗಳ], ೋಾರ ರವರು 5ಾಂಕ: 29.04.2021ರ ಪತ(ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಮಂಡಳವನು9 ೋದQಂದ, ಈ ಜ/ೕ%ೆ ಸಂಬಂˆFದ ಾAೆಯು ಾಜ` ಉಚ• ಾ`Pಾಲಯದ,- ecಾರŠಾ ಹಂತದ,- ಇದQರೂ ಸಹ ೋes- 19 ಾರಣ5ಂಾD ಸ{"ೕಯ ವತಕರ Aಾ`'ಾರ ವYAಾಟು ನGೆಸಲು >ಾ>ಾo,ಕ ವ`ವೆ{ Nೕೆ%ೆ ೋes-19 ಬಂಧೆಗಳನು9 ಸ ಾರವU ಸKಲ%ೊ"ಸುವವೆ%ೆ ಾತ( ಕೃ ಉತ8ನ9 ಾರುಕXೆC ಸ/E ೋಾರ ರವರು ಉಪSೕDF ೊಳkಲು 5ಾಂಕ: 05.05.2021ರ ಪತ(ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಮಂಡಳವU - 34 - ಅನುಮE ೕKರುತೆ. ೋes-19 ಯಮಗಳ] ಸKಲ%ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಅಥAಾ ಮುಂhತAಾD ಈ ಜ/ೕನು ಮಂಡಳದ ಉಪSೕಗ ಾoD ;ೇ ಾದ,- >ೆರವU%ೊ"ಸ;ೇ ಾDರುತೆ ಎಂದು ಸಹ ಸದ ಪತ(ದ,- E"ಸಾDರುತೆ. ಆದೆ ಪ(ಸುತ ಸ/E%ೆ ಉಪSೕDF ೊಳkಲು ೕಡಾದ ಮಂಡಳದ 2 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ dೊ>ೆ%ೆ ಮಂಡಳದ ಸುಪˆಯ,-ರುವ 2 ಎಕೆ ಜ/ೕನ,- 0ೕ4ಂದ /ತAಾದ ಹಲAಾರು (ಸು ಾರು 50ಕೂo 3ೆಚು•) ಅನˆಕೃತ ಮ"%ೆಗಳನು9 /ಸಾDರುತೆ. ಸದ ಜ/ೕನ,-ರುವ ಈ ಅನˆೕಕೃತ †ೆಡು‘ಗಳ] ತಮO ಸ/E%ೆ ೋes-19ರ ಅವˆಯ,- >ಾ>ಾo,ಕAಾD ೕಡಾDದQ ಸಮಯದ,- /ಸಾDರುತೆ. ಇದ ೆo ಸ/Eƒೕ ೇರ 3ೊŠೆPಾDರುತೆ. ಸ ಾರವU ೋes-19 ಯಮಗಳನು9 >ೆರವU%ೊ"Fದ ನಂತರವ€, ಾಜ` ಉಚ• ಾ`Pಾಲಯದ ಆೇಶದ ನಂತರವ€ 3ಾಗೂ ಮಂಡಳದ ಹಲವU ಮನeಯ ನಂತರವ€ ಸದ ಜ/ೕನನು9 ಇದುೆಗೂ ಮಂಡಳದ ಸುಪ5%ೆ ಹಾಂತFರುವU5ಲ-". 19. Thus, even from the reading of the response from the petitioner-Society as noted above, undisputedly, 2 acres of land has remained un-utilized though purported efforts were made by the petitioner to put up the construction. Even the cold storage which was put up has been stopped and same is not functioning. 20. As regards, the question of respondent-Marketing Committee excising power under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966 is concerned, the said question has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.51354/2016, which is disposed of on 01.03.2023, wherein at paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: "7. Section 9 of the Act, 1966 deals with the establishment of market committee and its incorporation. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 specifies that, the Market Committee shall be competent to contract and to acquire, hold, lease, sell or - 35 - otherwise transfer any property, and to do all other things necessary for the purpose for which it is established. 8. The first proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 9 specifies that, no immovable property shall be acquired or transferred without the permission of the Director of Agricultural Marketing. 9. A conjoint reading of Clause-3 of the order passed by the 2nd respondent allotting the subject land in favour of the petitioner and also the first proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 9 indicates that, the power to forfeit the land vests with the Market Committee subject to approval by the Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee. Even accepting for a moment that, the government in exercise of power under Section 126 of the Act, 1966, has the power to forfeit the land, however, the said provision requires/mandates for issuance of notice to affected party." 21. Consequently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while quashing the impugned order and the circular, had directed respondent No.3 to initiate action against the petitioner-Society for violation of condition No.3 in the order dated 13.03.1992 and the additional conditions imposed in communication dated 25.04.2005. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner-Society and the findings given with regard to exercise of power under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966 has attained finality. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner-Society to question the exercise of power by the respondent No.3- Marketing Committing under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1966. - 36 - 22. The show cause notices dated 20.03.2015 and 07.04.2015 have been issued subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order in W.P.No.51354/2016. Admittedly, joint inspection was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and the respondent-Marketing Committee in the presence of petitioner and thereafter resolution dated 03.07.2023, and Order dated 06.07.2023 resulting in impugned order dated 10.07.2023 has been passed. 23. Petitioner therefore cannot contend that he has not been given opportunity of being heard. 24. The only contention would remain for consideration is condition No.27 of the lease cum sale agreement, which is vehemently relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society to contend that even in terms of the said condition, petitioner is required to put up construction and utilise the land, only within three years from the date of deed of sale, which has not been executed till date. 25. This argument would not be of any avail, in the light of this Court already having directed the respondent- - 37 - authority to initiate action for violation of condition, under the order dated 13.03.1992 and the additional condition dated 25.04.2005. 26. Furthermore, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Radha Sundar Dutta Vs. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim and others5 and Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia (Supra) wherein the principles of law, namely, if there is a conflict between the earlier clause and the later clause and if it was not possible to give effect to all of them, the rule of construction is that the earlier clause must override the later clause and not vice- versa, would apply squarely to the instant case as well. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Radha Sundar Dutta (Supra), which is followed in the case of Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia (Supra) are as hereunder: "11. Now, it is a settled rule of interpretation that if there be admissible two constructions of a document, one of which will give effect to all the clauses therein while the other will render one or more of them nugatory, it is the former that should be adopted on the principle expressed in the maxim "ut res magis valeat quam perear. 5 AIR 1959 SC 24 - 38 - 13. …. If, in fact, there is a conflict between the earlier clause and the later clauses and it is not possible to give effect to all of them, then the rule of construction is well established that it is the earlier clause that must override the later clauses and not vice versa. In Forbes v. 'Git, (1922)1 AC 256 at p.259: (AIR 1921 PC 209 at p.211) (J) Lord Wrenbury stated the rule in the following terms: " If in a deed an earlier clause is followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant and the earlier clause prevails, in this case the two clauses cannot be reconciled and the earlier provision in the deed prevails over the later." 27. Applying the aforesaid principles, the conditions enumerated in lease cum sale agreement namely conditions Nos.22, 23, 26 and 27 read in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, makes it clear that Condition Nos.22, 23 and 26, being in consonance with the conditions imposed in Order dated 13.03.1992, it is condition Nos.22, 23 and 26, which prevail over condition No.27. The petitioner-Society therefore cannot take advantage of condition No.27 of the lease cum sale agreement, reading in isolation the other conditions noted above. 28. Further, in the light of admitted fact of petitioner-Society not having utilized 2 acres of land, out of 4 acres of land which was allotted, this Court do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the - 39 - respondent-Marketing Committee. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition is dismissed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL