The court affirmed that under the applicable agricultural regulations, deviation from designated property use constituted a violation justifying forfeiture of the property.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S Patil appearing for the petitioner, Sri Praveen K. Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri C S Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 09.12.2020, passed by respondent No.2, in Appeal No.2/2017.

3. The petitioner, in the appeal referred to above had questioned the order dated 08.09.2016 passed by respondent No.4-Additional Director of Agricultural Marketing.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that on 30.11.2007, a registered lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.5-Committee, which enabled the petitioner to occupy the petition property to carryout certain businesses specified in the said lease-cum-sale agreement.

5. The petitioner sought permission from respondent No.5-Committee (Committee) to lease/rent the part of the petition premises in favour of Andhra Bank. The petitioner urged that to meet the business demands of the people who transact in APMC yard, a banking facility in the APMC yard is required and requested the Committee to permit the petitioner to lease/rent the premises to Andhra Bank.

6. It is stated that the permission was granted by the Committee and thereafter, the petitioner rented half portion of the premises in favour of the Andhra Bank and remaining half portion is used for the purpose of carrying out the business for which the petition property was allotted to the petitioner on lease-cum-sale agreement.

7. It is urged that Committee having as per the resolution dated 08.09.2015, resolved to permit the petitioner to use the part of the premises for banking purpose, sought approval from the Director of Agricultural Marketing.

8. Respondent No.4-Additional Director of Agricultural Marketing has declined to grant approval to the resolution on the premise that the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (Act, 1966) do not enable such use of the property and also directed the Committee to take further steps in accordance with law to forfeit the premises.

9. Said order is called in question by filing of an appeal. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal in terms of the impugned order and has upheld the order passed by the respondent No.4- Additional Director of Agricultural Marketing directing forfeiture of the property.

10. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner rented the premises to the Andhra Bank after obtaining permission of Committee to rent half portion of the premises and resolution is passed providing for such rent and thereafter, the Andhra Bank is inducted in the half portion of the premises as a tenant and the said bank is carrying on the business for the benefit of all who transact in the APMC yard Hubballi and there is no violation of any provision of law.

11. In addition, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would also urge that the order for forfeiture is without notice to the petitioner and more than anything else, it was beyond the scope of authority of respondent No.4 who was only required to consider whether the approval sought by the Committee can be granted or not. If the proposal of the Committee is to be rejected then, the petitioner ca