Mohan Kumar Patel vs The State of Karnataka and The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC)

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (for short ''APMC''), Batawadi, Tumkur District, had sold a vacant site bearing No. 219/14 measuring east to west 27 mtrs. north to south 12 mtrs. under a deed of sale dated 5.6.1986 in favour of Smt. T.C. Renukamba Smt. T.C. Renukamba sold the said property in favour of the petitioner herein by a sale deed dated 20.11.2004. Thus, the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the said property. It is the case of the petitioner that after purchase of the property, he has put up construction thereon in accordance with the plan issued by the APMC in favour of his vendor Smt. T.C. Renukamba. The petitioner has produced the photographs of the constructions made thereon along with a memo dated 30.7.2010. The third respondent has issued a notice as per Annexure ''A'' dated 7.12.2009 forfeiting the site in question on the ground that the vendor of the petitioner has failed to put up construction thereon in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition requesting this Court to quash Annexure ''A'' dated 7.12.2009.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3 It is evident from the materials on record that the petitioner had purchased the property in question from T.C. Renukamba and T.C. Renukamba in turn had purchased the said property from the APMC, Batawadi, Tumkur District. It is also evident that the petitioner has put up construction thereon. If that is so. question of forfeiting the said site for not putting up construction does not arise. Though the notice at Annexure ''A'' was issued to the vendor of the petitioner, the petitioner can maintain the writ petition since he has purchased the said property as above.

In the result, the writ petition Succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The notice at Annexure ''A'' dated 7.12.2009 is hereby quashed. No costs.