AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—2nd respondent - APMC, Hosadurga, 577 527, allotted on 04.07.1990 site bearing No. A-24 in Block ''A'', at its market yard to the petitioner. However, on 31.08.1990, the 2nd respondent passed a resolution vide Annexure-A forfeiting the allotted site. An intimation of forfeiture vide Annexure-B was sent to the petitioner on 24.09.1990. After submitting a representation dated 29.06.1998 and finding no response, claiming parity in the matter with that of the writ petitioners in W.P. 28138-28143/2009 decided on 07.12.2009, this writ petition has been filed to quash the resolution as at Annexure-A and the consequential intimation as at Annexure-B. Sri Sathenahalli B.R., learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is similarly placed like that of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 28138-143/2009 and hence, the impugned resolution and the consequential intimation being arbitrary and illegal, may be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed in the matter of undertaking construction on the allotted site and its completion for being used in the market yard for the sale of the market produce.
Sri H.K. Thimmegowda, learned advocate for the 2nd respondent, having obtained instructions, submitted that the site in question has remained unallotted, even though it was resolved to be forfeited on 31.08.1990 and an intimation to the said effect was sent to the petitioner on 24.09.1990 vide Annexures-A & B respectively. Learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not put on notice with regard to the forfeiture of the allotment.
Petitioner having allotted with the site, if there were to be any violation of the terms of allotment, he ought to have been put on notice, granted reasonable opportunity of hearing and thereafter, decision ought to have been taken which is not the case herein. The impugned action is arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice. No doubt, the petitioner did not put up the construction immediately after its allotment. The period between the date of allotment and the date of forfeiture is too short for the petitioner to obtain plan and licence and commence the construction work. In identical circumstances, i.e., W.P. Nos. 14302-306/2009 decided on 10.06.2009, the cancellation of sites made in favour of persons similarly situated like the petitioner was set aside and the allottees were granted one year time for putting up construction. In fact, the persons who suffered adverse consequences on account of the resolution as at Annexure-A had filed W.P. Nos. 28318-29143/2009 and the said petitions were allowed on 07.12.2009 vide Annexure-F.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned resolution as at Annexure-A, to the extent it concerns the petitioner and the consequential intimation as at Annexure-B are quashed.
Petitioner is granted one year time to put up the construction. Petitioner shall make an application for issue of plan and licence within a period of two months, commence and complete the construction work within one year''s period. In case of default, the resolution as at Annexure-A and the consequential intimation as at Annexure-B shall stand revived.
No costs.