The intention of the legislature is to prevent an allottee from possessing more than one plot in the market yard, and the conversion under Rule 12(2) of the Rules must be considered as a fresh allotment and is subject to Rule 7(2) of the Rules.

ORDER :

The petitioner is a licensed market functionary and trader and has been allotted shop No.41 in the market yard at Dharwad, on leave and license basis, in the year 1985. Thereafter, he was also allotted shop No.84 in the market yard at Dharwad in the year 1998 on lease-cum-sale basis.

2. Rule 12(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, for brevity), provides for conversion of shops allotted on leave and license basis to lease-cum-sale agreement, upon satisfaction of certain conditions. The petitioner upon satisfying the said conditions, requested the concerned authorities to convert his leave and license agreement into that of lease-cum-sale agreement in respect of shop No.41. However, the authorities directed him to vacate the said shop and passed an order to that effect. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred W.P.No.106875/2014, which was allowed and respondent No.2 herein was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conversion of leave and license into lease-cum-sale agreement. However, respondent Authorities have rejected the request of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is already owning a shop at No.84 of the market yard and Rule 7(2) of the Rules prohibits the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, once he has been allotted a shop in the market yard on the basis of leave and license agreement, upon him satisfying the conditions as contemplated under Rule 12(2) of the Rules, automatically he is entitled for conversion of the same into lease-cum-sale agreement, and his request cannot be rejected on the ground that he owns another shop. It is further contended that, as per paragraph No.12 of the order passed in W.P.No.106875/2014, the respondent authorities are bound to consider the request of the petitioner positively.

4. Per contra, advocate for respondents submit that, the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, is a social welfare legislation and the Rules made there under when read with the Act, make it clear that the same are passed with an intention of providing plots in the market yards for private persons to establish their shops at subsidized rates, so that it benefits the trader or licensed functionaries and also the general public, and that the scheme of Act and the Rules mandates that, one market functionary should be allotted only one plot either on leave and license basis or lease-cum-sale agreement. It is further submitted that, the order passed in W.P.No.106875/2014 has set aside the order of respondent No.2, to have the petitioner evicted, because there were certain errors in it and the order does not mandate that the request of the petitioner for converting his leave and license agreement into lease-cum-sale agreement should be considered positively. It is further submitted that the said order does not examine the purpose of the Act and Rules and the question whether a person can be allotted only one plot or more than one plot. It is also submitted that, whether the shop is given to the trader on the basis of lease-cum-sale agreement or leave and license agreement, it has to be considered as an allotment and Rule 7(2) of the Rules prohibits allotment of more than one plot to the same person and Rule 12(2) of the Rules is subject to Rule 7(2) and on the said ground it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been allotted plot No.84 in the market yard on lease-cum-sale agreement basis and plot No.41 on leave and license basis. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has fulfilled the required terms and conditions for conversion of leave and license agreement into lease-cum-sale agreement. The question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is, whether the petitioner can be p