The burden of proof lies with parties claiming exemption from market fees, necessitating sufficient evidence of transactions occurring outside designated market areas.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the resolution dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Mangalore (for short ‘Committee’) under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1996 ( for short ‘Act of 1996’).

2. Respondent No.2 is the Secretary of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Mangalore.

3. In addition to assailing the resolution dated 28.07.2015, petitioners have also assailed the communication dated 29.09.2015, bearing No.MSC/CR/59/15-16, marked at Annexure-E, and the communication dated 24.11.2015 bearing No.MSC/CR/60/15-16 marked at Annexure – F.

4. The communication dated 29.09.2015 at Annexure – E, is by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk to proceed further against petitioner No.1 to recover the alleged dues payable by petitioner No.1, to the Committee. Annexure – F dated 24.11.2015 is the communication by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru to Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk to recover the alleged dues payable by petitioner No.2, to the Committee.

5. Further the petitioners have questioned the notice bearing No.MSC/CR/104/15-16 dated 07.11.2015 marked at Annexure – G and notice bearing No.MSC/CR/124/15-16 dated 14.12.2015 marked at Annexure – H.

6. Annexures-G and H are the notices under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules issued by the Tahsildar to petitioners No.1 and 2 respectively.

7. In terms of the impugned resolution dated 28.07.2015, the Committee resolved to recover Rs.6,83,416/- from the petitioner No.1 as arrears of land revenue. The said amount of Rs.6,83,416/- comprises two components namely, (a) Rs.1,70,854/- towards market fee, (b) Rs.5,12,562/- towards penalty.

8. In terms of the impugned resolution, the Committee also resolved to recover Rs.13,66,833/- from petitioner No.2 as arrears of land revenue. The said amount of Rs.13,66,833/- comprises two components namely, (a) Rs.3,41,708/- towards market fee, (b) Rs.10,25,125/- towards penalty.

9. The impugned resolution does not provide the details as to why Rs.6,83,416/- is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The impugned resolution refers to the letter dated 20.07.2015 (appears to be the legal opinion of the Advocate for the Committee). The Committee claims to have discussed the subject and pursuant to legal opinion, has proceeded to pass the impugned resolution.

10. The pleadings, both in the Writ Petition and the Statement of Objection would reveal that the dispute is relating to the alleged liability towards payment of market fee and penalty on account of alleged evasion of market fee payable by the petitioners, in connection with sale-purchase of certain quantity of notified agricultural produce i.e., wheat.

11. The Committee contends that the notified agricultural produce is found to be in the possession of the petitioners, within the “market area” as defined under the Act of 1966. Thus, according to the Committee, the person in possession of notified agricultural produce, has to either pay the market fee for having purchased the notified agricultural produce within the market area, or has to establish that the notified agricultural produce is purchased outside the “market area” as such not liable to pay any market fee or in any case, the transaction is not within the purview of the Act of 1966.

12. The petitioners have assailed the res