DHARMICHAND CHAJOD AND SONS SINDHANOOR RAICHUR DISTRICT Vs. AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE SINDHANOOR RAICHUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. V. Hiremath, learned Counsel for the respondents, namely, the learned High Court Government Advocate Sri B. E. Kotian and sri B. G. Sridharan, who represents the respondent 1-the Market committee.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 28-8-1997, passed by respondent 1-the Market Committee in No. Kai U Masa - Cim Niveshan 1997-98 of 1830-Annexure-H, to this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that plaintiff has been a registered dealer, commission agent and general merchant and had been carrying on its business within the jurisdiction of the Market committee-respondent 1. Petitioner, as asserted to be having the valid licence to carry out the business in the A. P. M. C. Yard of sindhanoor, vide a licence issued by Respondent 1, annexure-A1. The petitioner has filed the copy of the certificate, whereunder it is said that it has been certified by respondent I, that the petitioner has been carrying on the business in the Yard from 1992, till this date and had been holding the licence. Petitioner's further case is that depending upon the need of establishment of Market Yard for the farmers and dealers, respondent 1, acquired open site from the private owners and thereafter, agreed to allot the same on lease-cum-sale agreement basis for a period of 10 years. Pursuant to this agreement, respondent 1 made allotment of the site for the purpose of construction of the shop-cum-godown on the petitioner's application for the purpose and the petitioner was allotted a vacant corner site by respondent 1. The site allotted is Plot No. 1 measuring 13 x 9 metres, at the rate of Rs. 160. 62 per square metre, at the cost of Rs. 43,368/-, vide allotment order dated 21-3-1997, Annexure-B, to this writ petition. Petitioner's case is that on 22-3-1997, petitioner remitted the whole sum of Rs. 43,368/- and got the receipt for the deposit made which receipt has been annexed as Annexure-C, to this writ petition and in pursuance of the amount, the Market Committee executed a registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 27-3-1997, copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-D, to this writ petition. As per condition of the recitals in the deed vide Clause 9, of the deed, petitioner was required to carry out the construction work within the time prescribed thereunder. Petitioner's case is that vide letter dated 16-4-1997, that is annexure-E, from the respondents, petitioner had been required to make the constructions.