ASHOK AND ANR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO. 202834 OF 2024 (APMC-)

BETWEEN:

1. ASHOK
S/O GURUBASAPPA KHUBA
AGED: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
MARKET YARD AURAD-B, R/O AURAD
TQ: AURAD AND DIST: BIDAR-585401

2. BHAGAWANTH
S/O GURUBASAPPA KHUBA
AGED: 62 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK
AND BUSINESS MARKET YARD AURAD-B
R/O AURAD, TQ: AURAD AND
DIST: BIDAR-585326.

…PETITIONERS










Digitally signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ K BUKKA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
APMC (AGRICULTURE PRODUCER
MARKET COMMITTEE) RAJBHAVAN ROAD
NO.16 BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
APMC (AGRICULTURE PRODUCER
MARKET COMMITTEE) RAJBHAVAN ROAD

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024


NO.16 BANGALORE-560001.

3.
THE SECRETARY
APMC (AGRICULTURE PRODUCER
MARKET COMMITTEE) AURAD B
TQ: AURAD DIST: BIDAR-585401.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.KRUPA SAGAR PATIL ADV., FOR R2 AND R3)

THE WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE
A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ST
ORDER PASSED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT ORDER
NO. VIDE
PÉʪÀiÁE/527/D©üPÉ/2008, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.12.2008 (09.01.2009)
ANNEXURE-J SERIAL NO.35 PLOT NO. BEARING 43; B) ISSUED
A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
TO THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE
PETITIONERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AT
MARKET YARD AURAD B IN PLOT NO.43; C) PASS ANY ORDER
OR DIRECTION AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024


ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
30.12.2008 passed by respondent No.1, produced at
Annexure-J, in respect of plot bearing No.43 and further
prayed to issue a writ in nature of mandamus to the
authorities to permit the petitioner to construct a building
at the Market Yard, Aurad-B in the allotted plot to the
petitioner.


2. Sri.Jairaj K. Bukka, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the application,
a plot was allotted to the petitioner and subsequently,
respondent No.3 executed a registered sale deed dated
30.04.1994 in respect of the said plot. Pursuant thereto,
the name of the petitioner was entered in the panchayat
records and he has been paying the taxes since then.
However, respondent No.1 abruptly passed the impugned
order cancelling the allotment made in favour of various
allottees including the petitioner, on the ground that the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024


petitioner had failed to put up the construction of the shop
on the allotted plot within a period of two years. It is
submitted that the cancellation order is passed without
providing any opportunity to the petitioner. It is further
submitted that once a registered sale deed has been
executed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents have
no authority to cancel the same. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of Devidas v. The State of Karnataka
1
and Others and seeks to allow the petition.


3. Per contra, Sri.Viranagouda Biradar, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent
No.1 and Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.2 and 3, in chorus, submit that the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground
of delay and laches, as the order impugned is of the year
2008, whereas this writ petition has been filed only in the
year 2024. It is submitted that, in similar circumstances,

1

WP.No.202751/2022 dated 03.10.2023

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024


the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
2
Surykanth v. The State of Karnataka and Others ,
dismissed the writ petition. It is further submitted that the
filing of the writ petition is premature, as respondent No.1
has passed the order directing respondent No.2-The Joint
Director, Agriculture Producer Market Committee, to take
necessary steps against the allottees mentioned in the
order for their failure to put up the construction of the
shop within the stipulated period and respondent No.2 is
yet to take action on the same. It is also submitted that
even the Market Committee has a power to get the sale
deed cancelled. In support of his contentions, they placed
reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of M/s. Sri.Venkataram and Co., Shimoga
3
City v. The State of Karnataka and Others and seek
to dismiss the writ petition.


2

WP.No.203331/2024 dated 10.11.2025
3

AIR 1998 KAR 288

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024



4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and
meticulously perused the material available on record.


5. It is not in dispute between the parties that the
petitioner is the allottee of a plot bearing No.43,
measuring east to west 9 meters and north to south 12
meters in the market yard Aurad-B. Pursuant to the
allotment, the respondents executed a registered sale
deed dated 30.04.1994 in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner has produced documents to indicate that, based
on such registered sale deed, the then Aurad Mandal
Panchayath, later Gram Panchayat and now the local body
entered the name of the petitioner as the Khatedar in
respect of the property and has started collecting the
taxes for the said property.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024



6. It is to be noticed that respondent No.1 passed
an order dated 30.12.2008, produced at Annexure-J which
is impugned in the present petition, wherein respondent
No.1 has observed that number of allottees, who were
allotted open spaces in the Market Yard, had failed to put
up construction thereon, for a period of time, hence,
ordered respondent No.2-The Joint Director, Agriculture
Producer Market Committee to take action for cancellation
of the sale deeds.


7. It is also not in dispute that clause No.2 of the
convent at page No.3 of the registered sale deed clearly
indicates that the vendee has to construct a Shop-cum-
Godwan within the prescribed period of two years. If the
vendee fails to do so, the vendor is at liberty to get the
sale deed cancelled and get back the possession of the
allotted site and also the vendor has every right to
re-sell the same to any other market functionary.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024



8. Considering the aforesaid clause in the sale
deed dated 30.04.1994, the petitioner ought to have put
up the construction within a period of two years from the
date of execution of the sale deed. Admittedly, till the
impugned order is passed by respondent No. 1 which is in
the year 2008, no construction has been put up by the
petitioner. Even during the pendency of this petition, the
petitioner has not made any attempt to put up the
construction by submitting the plan to the authority and
seeking leave of the Court to put up the construction
during the pendency of this case.


9. Be that as it may, it is further to be noticed that
the impugned order is of the year 2008, whereas the
present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2024,
which is more than 16 years and on the ground of delay
and latches itself the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
The similar view is taken by this Court in the case of
Surykanth referred supra . It is also to be noticed that the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024


Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.
Sri.Venkataram and Co., Shimoga City referred supra
at paragraph Nos.14, 16 and 17 has considered the
powers of the Market Committee and held that Market
Committee has every power to cancel the sale deed and
take possession of the allotted property.


10. Considering the aforesaid decisions, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner has been allotted a
shop in the Market Yard in order to facilitate him to
commence the business. However, he failed to put up
construction and carry out his business activities and kept
the site idle for more than a decade. Hence, no indulgence
can be shown in the case of the petitioner.


11. The petitioner has placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in the case of Devidas referred
supra . The said case is based on the decision rendered in
WA.No.50266/2013 and in the said case of the Division
Bench, categorically observed that the allottee has failed

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11916
WP No. 202834 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030091522024


to pay the balance amount and it was not a case of
non-construction in the allotted site. Hence, the said
decision has no application to the case on hand.
Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the
same is rejected .


Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE


ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6