Karnataka High Court
WP/59430/2015 of SREE SHAILA TRADERS Vs DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING on 31 December 2015
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY Writ Petition Nos.59430-59432 OF 2015 (APMC) Between: 1. Sree Shaila Traders, B-21, APMC Yard, Mandya by its Prop: H.Atmananda, S/o Kalegowda, Aged 54 Years. 2. M/s
IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATEKED THIS THE [ST]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
BEFORE|
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY.
Writ Petition Nos.59430)09432 OF 2015 (APMC)
Between:
1. Sree Shaila Traders,
B-21, APMC Yard,Mandya by its Prop:H.Atmananda,»/o Kalegowda,Aged 54 Years.Mandya by its Prop:H.Atmananda,»/o Kalegowda,Aged 54 Years.
2. M/s Star Agencies,|B-19, APMC Yard,Mandya by its Prop:omt. Mumtaz Begum|D/o Late Abdulla Qualik Saheb.Aged 31 years.
3. M/s. Sapthagiri Traders,B-12, APMC Yard,Mandya by its Prop:Ramakrishna,»/o Late M. Chowdappa,Aged 409 years.Petitioners (By Shri. B.R.Satenahalli, Advocate)
And:
1. Director of Agricultural Marketing,
No.16, 2[%1]Raj Bhavan Road,Bengaluru — 560 O01.Bengaluru — 560 O01.
2. The Secretary,
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee,Mandya — 971 401..Mandya — 971 401..
...Respondents
(By Shri.H. Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA for R-1;shri. T. Swaroop, Advocate for R-2)shri. T. Swaroop, Advocate for R-2)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and|227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the (i)order dated 17.06.2015 vide Annex-D, (11) order dated17.06.2015 vide Annex-EF, (11) order dated 19.06.2015 videAnnexure-F, issued by the R-2.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing|this day, the Court made the following:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
sri.H.Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional GovernmentAdvocate takes notice for Respondent No.l and.ori.T.Swaroop,learnedCOUNSE|takesnoticefor Respondent No.2. They are served with a copy of the|petitions.
|The backdrop of the case is that lease-cum-sale deeds came to be executed by the Agricultural|Produce Marketing Committee in favour of each of the|petitioners respectively, on the petitioners paying 35%|of the price as a down payment towards the value of|the shop-cum-godown. As per the terms of the|agreement, the petitioners were to pay the remaining|65% of the balance consideration. The petitioners have|paid the entire consideration, but after a delay.Instead of executing registered Sale Deeds, the|amounts paid were sought to be forfeited by the second|respondent and hence, the present petitions.
3The learned counsel for the _ petitionerwould concede that similarly placed petitioners had|
approached this court by way of a writ petition in W.P.|02686/2015, and this court by order dated 33.12.2015,had allowed the petition and directed the respondent — Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee to execute|and register a sale deed in respect of the property.
4 |This Court, having allowed the petition of|persons similarly placed as the petitioners, the|petitioners would submit that they would deposit the|entire sale consideration along with the interest and|other charges with the second respondent andthereafter, the second respondent may be directed to|execute and register sale deeds in favour of the|petitioners.
Hence, the present petitions are summarilyallowed. The respondents are directed to execute and.register sale deeds in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks, on the petitioners depositing the|
#%! “#”&/0# 8$%& 1# /! $% /0$%7 , !. !.# %!# #&! /%1
$!.#��8./“7#&”, !. !.# $%1��#&4$%1#%!���$%&#I9#%!02��!.# 5497%#1��%%#F9 #& B J����J���/%1
J���/ # I9/&.#1����
���������������������
�����