M/s. A. Rajashekar and Company vs The Director of Agricultural Marketing and The Secretary

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner, an allottee of a site in Block-H, of Sy. No. 1 of Srigandada Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk and District, has filed this writ petition, questioning the action of 2nd respondent in forfeiting the allotted site as per the resolution dated 73.1985, as at Annexure-G. In identical circumstances, in the case of T.K. Shivaiah vs. The State of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No. 22048/2010, the impugned notice was quashed and the allottee-petitioner was granted one year time to put up construction on the site in question, in accordance with the terms and conditions of lease cum sale agreement, reserving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action against the allottee-petitioner, in case of default.

Heard Sri N.K. Siddeswara, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Balaraj and Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned advocates appearing for the respondents and perused the writ petition record.

Sri Siddeswara, submitted that after forfeiture of the allotted site, the 2nd respondent has not made allotment of the site in question in favour of any other person and that the site in question has remained unallotted. Sri Siddeswara, submitted that the petitioner''s case is covered by the order dated 22.07.2010, passed in W.P. No. 22048/2010 and hence, the petitioner may be extended the benefit of the said order. Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 having obtained instructions, submitted that the site in question has remained unallotted till day. Since the site in question has remained un-allotted, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the order passed in W.P. No. 22048/2010 dated 22.07.2010.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the impugned resolution/endorsement vide Annexure-G is quashed. Petitioner is granted time till 5.8.2014, to put up construction on the site in question, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement executed by him in favour of respondent No. 2, failing which the 3rd respondent is at liberty to take action against the petitioner for forfeiture of the allotted site.

No costs.