High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 12 KAR CK 0137

Sri Waris Islam Ayubi vs State of Karnataka and The Secretary Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 16 December 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Abdul Nazeer, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 40733 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 369 words

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for R-1 and R-2. Sri. K.K. Thimmegowda, learned Counsel, is directed to take notice for R-3.

2.

The Petitioner was allotted a site bearing No. 77 at Kolar APMC yard and a lease cum sale agreement as per Annexure-B dated 4.12.2006 was executed in his favour. As per the said agreement, the Petitioner ought to have to put up construction on the said site within a period of one year.Since the Petitioner failed to put up construction as above, Respondent No. 3 has issued a notice dated 22.07.2009 as per Annexure-A forfeiting the site in question. The Petitioner has challenged the validity of the said notice dated 22.07.2009 as per Annexure-A in this writ petition.

3.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4.

Learned cousnel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner could not put up construction on the said site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement due to the reasons beyond his control. He further submits that the Petitioner will put up construction on the said site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement within a period of one year.

5.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is just and reasonable. In identical matters, this Court has granted an year''s time to the Petitioners therein to put up construction on the sites allotted by the APMC in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement. The Petitioner is also entitled for the similar order.

6.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The notice dated 22.07.2009 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The Petitioner is granted one year from today to put up construction on the site in question in accordance with the terms and conditions at lease cum sale agreement at Annexure-B failing which liberty is reserved to the Respondents to take appropriate action against the Petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.

7.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents are permitted to file their memo of appearance/vakalath, as the case may be, within a period of eight weeks from today.