01Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of an oil industry at Badami, was allotted Plot No. 14 in the APMC market yard in 1994; a lease-cum-sale deed was executed in 1995, requiring construction within the prescribed time.
p. 3After the petitioner failed to construct within the stipulated period, notices were issued, including a notice dated 22 September 2018 directing him to stop construction undertaken without permission.
pp. 3–4The petitioner later completed the building and sought its regularisation.
He challenged the 22 September 2018 order and sought a direction to consider his representation dated 14 May 2020.
pp. 1–2The APMC opposed relief on the ground that construction had been completed late and without permission.
p. 402Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief against the impugned order concerning construction on the allotted APMC plot, given that the building had already been constructed.
pp. 2, 4–5ii.2. Whether the APMC should be directed to consider regularisation of the completed building, subject to compliance with the lease-cum-sale deed and payment of costs.
pp. 5–803Law Applied
The Court referred to the APMC Act as the governing framework for action by the respondent Committee, observing that—apart from issuing a notice in 2014—the respondent had not taken action as contemplated under the Act.
p. 5It also treated the lease-cum-sale deed’s construction requirements as binding on the petitioner and directed that any infraction remain subject to action by the APMC in accordance with law.
p. 8The Court cited its order in W.P. No. 104276 of 2025, which had granted the petitioners in that case additional time to construct subject to costs; it did not identify any specific statutory provision or formulate a broader legal test for regularisation.
pp. 5–704Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had commenced and completed construction, a fact supported by the photograph on record and not disputed by the APMC’s counsel.
p. 5It also observed that, despite an earlier opportunity to construct and a notice issued in 2014, the respondent had not taken further action under the APMC Act.
p. 5In light of the completed construction and the petitioner’s willingness to pay costs, the Court directed the APMC to take action in accordance with law to regularise the building, while preserving the APMC’s authority to act if the petitioner breached the lease-cum-sale deed’s conditions.
pp. 5–805Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the APMC to take action in accordance with law to regularise the completed building.
p. 8The direction was conditional on the petitioner paying ₹1,00,000 as costs within three weeks; failing payment, the order would automatically stand recalled.
pp. 7–8The petitioner was also required to comply with the lease-cum-sale deed, and the APMC remained free to take lawful action in the event of any breach.
p. 8Original Court PDF
M.K.PATTANASHETTIvsTHE DIRECTOR,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
