01Facts
The petitioner was allotted Plot No. 46 at the APMC Market Yard, Aurad, on 12 June 2024 for ₹5,40,000.
pp. 3–7After paying 25% of the value, he did not pay the remaining ₹4,05,000 within the prescribed period, citing ill health.
pp. 3–7He sought acceptance of the balance and execution of the necessary deed by representation dated 18 March 2025.
pp. 3–7Following an earlier writ petition directing consideration of that representation, respondent No. 2 rejected the request on the ground that there was no provision to accept the delayed payment.
pp. 3–7The petitioner had paid the balance amount on 31 March 2026; the allotment had not been cancelled.
pp. 3–702Issues
i.1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s request to accept the delayed balance payment was sustainable, where the plot allotment remained uncancelled and the balance had been paid.
pp. 5–7ii.2. Whether the petitioner could be directed to pay interest for the period of delay as a condition for proceeding with the lease-cum-sale agreement.
pp. 10–1203Law Applied
Rule 10(1)(i) of the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 requires an allottee to pay the balance value within 90 days of receiving the allotment order. It permits the Market Committee to extend the time by up to a further 60 days, subject to interest at 12% per annum for the extended period.
pp. 7–10The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decisions in Ganesh Singh Hajari v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 200443/2024 (22 August 2024), and M/s MD. Zahoor Vegetable Commission Agent v. Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and Another, W.P. No. 201567/2022 (19 July 2022), in which indulgence had been granted to similarly placed allottees regarding delayed payment.
pp. 3–4, 10–1104Reasoning
The Court accepted that the balance payment was made outside the period contemplated by Rule 10(1)(i), but noted that the petitioner had paid the full balance before filing the present petition and that the allotment had not been cancelled.
pp. 6–7, 10–11Applying the approach adopted in the cited coordinate Bench decisions, and considering the petitioner’s stated reason for delay, the Court held that the interests of justice would be met by requiring interest at 12% per annum on ₹4,05,000 for the period from 12 June 2024 to 31 March 2026, excluding the initial 90 days.
pp. 6–7, 10–1105Holding
The petition was allowed and the impugned endorsement dated 8 June 2026 was quashed.
pp. 11–12The petitioner was directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on ₹4,05,000 for the specified period, excluding the first 90 days, within two months of receiving the order.
pp. 11–12Upon payment, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to take steps to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement for Plot No. 46 within four months.
pp. 11–12Original Court PDF
M/S KHUSHI TRADERSvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
