AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—The legality and correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 6793 of 2006 dated 11-8-2011 is called in question by the appellants, who were petitioners in the writ petition, in these appeals.
The above mentioned writ petition was filed by the appellants herein, who are traders within the premises of Agricultural Produce Market Committee [APMC] yard, Bandipalya, Mysuru, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to mark sites or allot the same as per the modified layout plan of ''A'' block, APMC yard, Bandipalya, Mysuru and more particularly not to allot the site bearing No. 316 to any trader or applicant. A further direction was sought for by the writ petitioners-appellants to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to meddle with the previous plan of ''A'' block in the said APMC yard and to comply with the requirements of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 to retain the vacant areas, utility space, passages etc., required by the users of APMC yard. The writ petitioners have also sought summoning of the records in connection with the allotment of alternative sites bearing Nos. A-315, A-319 and A-321 of ''A'' Block of the APMC yard, Bandipalya, Mysuru and to examine the same and hold that the allotment of said sites is contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to resume those sites for demolishing and restoring the property to its original position and to take appropriate action against the officers, who were responsible in creating and tampering the official records to grant alternative sites to respondents 5 to 7.
According to the petition averments, the first petitioner-appellant is the allottee of site bearing No. 17 within the APMC yard at Mysuru by allotment letter dated 20-12-1990 and it has been doing business in the said premises. Similarly, the second petitioner-appellant is the allottee of site bearing No. 39 in the same APMC yard by virtue of allotment letter dated 14-12-1990 and it is also doing business in the said premises. There is a vacant space left on the southern and western sides of the sites allotted to the writ petitioners and the same has been used by the petitioners and other persons who are trading within the market yard as an amenity site. Now, all of a sudden, sites have been carved out in the said vacant space by fraudulent method and the same are being allotted in favour of respondents 5 to 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed, on the ground that the APMC cannot be considered as a ''planning authority'' and the planning authority for the area is Mysore Urban Development Authority [MUDA] and that the APMC has no right to create additional sites by using vacant space that is left vacant by it by tampering the records and therefore the sites allotted in favour of respondents 5 to 7 are to be cancelled and the said area has to be kept as it is.
The APMC contended that with an oblique motive, the writ petition is filed by the petitioners and that the APMC has authority to carve out sites in the lands owned by it and allot the same to needy persons and no irregularity or illegality is committed in forming the sites in the vacant space in question and allotting them in favour of respondents 5 to 7, as the allotment is within the domain of the APMC. It was further contended that MUDA has nothing today with the sanctioning of the plan and that the market committee need not approach MUDA for modification of the plan, because, the original plan itself has not been approved by the MUDA and that the APMC is the controller of the affairs of the market yard and it is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966. It was further contended by the APMC that the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 are not at all applicable to the APMCs in the entire State of Karnataka. Therefore, they requested the court to dismiss the writ petition.
MUDA contended that it is the urban development authority and the planning authority for the area and that the APMC has not obtained the plan sanctioned earlier or permission for creating additional sites and therefore the creation of sites by APMC is bad in law.
The learned Single Judge having examined the matter came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners are not entitled for any relief and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the present appeals are filed.
Sri B C Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitions, submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the APMC itself is the planning authority for the area without considering the fact that the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 are applicable to the APMC also. According to him, even though the APMC yards are regulated under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966, the market committee is bound to obtain sanctioned plan for formation of a layout or creating sites from the planning authority concerned. If any sites are formed without such sanctioned plan, they are to be considered as an illegal allotment and therefore submits that the allotment of sites in favour of respondents 5 to 7 is to be set aside. According to him, the whole approach of the learned Single Judge is bad in law and the impugned order requires to be interfered with.
Sri P.S. Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondent-MUD A submits that though the planning authority for the area is MUDA, at the time of establishment of the APMC at Bandipalya, Mysuru, the power has not been exercised by the planning authority and that the APMC or the director of agricultural marketing has not obtained any plan for the formation of the market yard or for forming sites. He fairly submits that no action has been taken by the MUDA in the matter of APMC forming a layout without obtaining the plan sanctioned from MUDA In other words, he admits that the sites allotted to the appellants-writ petitioners are also not approved by the planning authority viz., MUDA, because, the entire layout in the market yard has been formed by the APMC or the director of agricultural marketing on its own.
Per contra, Sri Nanda Kishore, learned counsel for the respondent-APMC submits that the APMC is a self-contained code under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966. In the entire state, all market yards have been constructed by the APMCs concerned and the director of agricultural marketing on their own and till today no such plan has been obtained not only for the Mysuru APMC but also for other APMCs in the state, since, APMC is governed by a special statute. He further submits that if any error is committed by the APMC in forming the layout by the APMC or carving out sites, the appellants cannot contend that carving of sites and allotting them in favour of respondents 5 to 7 is bad in law, since, if the contention of the appellants is to be accepted, at the first instance, they are to be evicted from the sites allotted in their favour, because, the sites allotted in favour of the appellants are also carved out by the APMC and at that time also, the APMC had not obtained any plan sanctioned from the MUDA. He further submits that the appellants, being beneficiaries of the layout formed by the APMC at the first instance, cannot now contend that the APMC has no power to carve out sites in the remaining area where sites were not formed earlier. He further submits that the area in which sites are earmarked and allotted in favour of respondents 5 to 7 was never earmarked for any amenity purpose, but it was lying vacant, since sites were not formed at the first instance and that as and when necessity arises further sites have been formed by the APMC and action of the APMC cannot be questioned by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the APMC further submits that the appellants were beneficiaries of the allotment made by the APMC, which is now called by them as illegal allotment, cannot also contend that a fraud is played in creating documents. According to him, when fraud is alleged against any person/s, the appellants are required to make them as parties by name and as the appellants have not made the persons who are said to have been indulged in or involved in tampering with the documents as parties to the proceedings, the said contention cannot be considered by this court. According to him, the allotment has been made by the market committee and without making the persons who are responsible for the alleged fraud, the appellants cannot contend that the allotment made by the APMC is bad. It is also his case that no fraud is committed by any one in carving out the additional sites and allotment of such sites. In the circumstance, he requests the court to dismiss the appeals.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered by us in these appeals is whether the learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing the writ petition?
Though the appellants are contending that they have been put in possession of the sites allotted in their favour in the year 1990, it is not their specific case that the APMC formed those sites after obtaining the plan or licence from MUDA, which, according to the appellants, is the planning authority. The grievance of the appellants is only in regard to formation of three sites now made by the APMC by way of a modified plan. The documents produced by the APMC disclose that before modifying the plan, necessary approval from the director of agricultural marketing was obtained. These facts are not in dispute. The contention of the appellants that the modified plan and formation of three sites are without obtaining the plan sanctioned from the planning authority-viz., MUDA, cannot be accepted, because, the entire market yard has been formed by the APMC even without obtaining the plan sanctioned from the MUDA. When the appellants are not disputing that the sites allotted in their favour were also formed by the APMC without there being a plan or licence obtained from the MUDA, if three more sites are formed by the APMC within the same market yard, the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, only on this short question, we have to non-suit the appellants.
Be that as it may, the main object of the enacting the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966 is provide a better regulation of marketing in agricultural produces and the establishment and administration of market yards for agricultural produces in the state. It has a self-contained code, which was come into effect in the year 1968, though the Act, is of the year 1966. Under clause-(h) of sub-section (1) of Section 112 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966, the functioning of the State Agricultural Board is to assist the marketing committees in the preparation of site plans, estimates and development of market yards. In addition to this, Section 3 of the Act deals with how an area has to be declared as a market yard and marketing of specified agricultural produces in the said market yard.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that pursuant to Section 4 of the above Act, certain extent of land in Bandipalya, Mysuru was earmarked as APMC yard and the same is sanctioned under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966. When the APMC yard has been established more than 25 years ago, when the MUDA has not taken any objection for the formation of sites and formation of the market yard, we are at loss to understand how the MUDA for the first time, contend in these proceedings that the forming of three sites within the existing market yard at My sum is bad. Therefore, only on the ground that the very allotment of sites in favour of the appellants was not after obtaining sanction from the MUDA, the appellants cannot now question the formation of three more sites by the APMC in the very marketing yard subsequently, contending that plan has not been obtained from MUDA. If MUDA feels that the very establishment of the APMC yard at Mysuru is bad in law, it is open for the MUDA to take such action in accordance with law and in such an event, the appellants would also to be suffered.
In so far as the allegation of fraud is concerned, the appellants have not arrayed the particular official or member of the market committee as a party to the proceedings and no material is also placed before the court to prove the alleged fraud. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard.
In the result, we do not see any grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.