IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT APPEAL NO.874 OF 2016(APMC)

BETWEEN:

THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE MYSURU-573 231. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI SWAROOP T, ADVOCATE)

AND

• 1. M/S VIGNESH OIL TRADERS NO. 5, A BLOCK SHOP NO 5/4 APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSORE-573 231 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. SATHISH SON OF DINESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
• 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING

NO.16, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: B.R. SATENAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI: T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 60617/2014 DATED 06/11/2015.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.60617 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition on certain terms, respondent No.2 therein has filed this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge had directed the issuance of a demand notice to the petitioner, demanding the present market value minus the payment already made by the petitioner. That the value of property can be ascertained by the valuation to be made by the Director. Hence, he pleads that the Director may be permitted to fix the value of the land in question. Except to this extent, he has no other grievance.

3. The Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has no objection to such a valuation to be made by the Director.

4. In view of the submissions, the appeal is disposed off by holding that the Director shall determine the present value of the land in question in place of determining the market value of the land in question.

The rest of the directions of the learned Single Judge are sustained.

Sd/- Sd/- JUDGE JUDGE