P. VARADARAJULU versus AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 01-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
P. VARADARAJULU 
A 
v. 
AGR!CUL TURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE 
APRIL I, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJ!T PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
'--I, 
Agricultural Produce Market Committee: 
Allotment of site-Suit for-Decreed-Execution-Stand of Market c 
Committee that site specified in plaint and the decree could not be allotted 
because of drainage at the site-Plaintiff willing to accept the site and to give 
an undertaking to take preventive steps-Held, Market Committee would allot 
the site and would incorporate the undertaking by the plaintiff as one of the 
conditions for allotment to be made. 
Appellant filed a suit against the respondent, an Agricultural Produce D 
. ..., 
Market Committee, for renewal of licence in his favour and for allotment of 
a vacant site in the Market Yard as specified in the plaint. The suit was 
decreed. In the execution proceedings the defendant reiterated its stand that 
the site could not be allotted. The High Court in the revision filed by the 
defendant, appointed an Advocate-Commissioner who reported that the E 
decree could not be executed because of existence of drainage on the spot. 
Before the High Court, the plaintiff submitted that he was willing to accept 
the space and gave an assurance that there would be no escape of drain water 
and no inconvenience would be caused and if any unhygienic condition was 
>-
created he was willing to accept the alternative allotment. The High Court F 
~ 
held that the decree was not executable. Aggrieved, the nlaintiff filed the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The basic issues have been lost sight by the High Court. The G 
sketch map annexed to the report of the Advocate-Commissioner shows that 
though there is a drain which is of about two feet width, there exists sufficient 
,.. 
space and extent of land, even excluding the drainage portion, for satisfying 
the decree. The Market Committee would allot the said vacant space in terms 
of the decree as indicated in the sketch map. The statement on behalf of the 
679 
H 
680 
SUPREME COL!R"I REPORTS 
[200.J] 3 S.C.R. 
A appellant regarding preventive steps to be taken to a\'Oid seepage of drain 
water and non-creation of unhygienic condition as made before the High 
Court, shall be incorporated in an undertaking and it would be one of the 
conditions for the allotment directed to be made.1681-G; 682-A-BI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. I 959-1960 
B of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5 .2000 of the Karnataka High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 3268/94 and Order dated 22.3.2002 in R.P. No. 750 of 
2000. 
C 
M.S. Ganesh and Nikhil Nayyar for the Appellant. 
E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted 
A small matter which could have been sorted out at the trial court level 
has unnecessarily been dragged through the corridors of several courts. The 
challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Karnataka High Court which has been disposed of under Section 
E 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). The respondent 
is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 
'Market Committee'). The appellant had filed a suit seeking direction for 
renewal of the licence in his favour and allotment of the vacant site. The 
same was the subject matter of dispute in OS No. I 0 I 5 of 1987 on the file 
F of the Additional City Civil Judge. Bangalore. Decree passed in the said case 
reads as follows: 
G 
H 
'"It is ordered and decreed that the defendant is directed to allot a 
vacant site in between site No. I 0-C and 11 /2 situated at 2nd main 
of AMPC Yard to the plaintiff. 
It is further decreed that the defendant is directed to renew the 
licence in favour of the plaintiff to carry on business. 
It is further decreed that the defendant is further directed that if 
any building or maliges are constructed in vacant site in between 
sites I 0-C and 11/2, the same shall be allotted to the plaintiff." 
I'. VARADARAJllLU 1·. AGRICUl.Tl ill AL PJ(ODUCF MKT UJ~l,ll ITFE fl' AS.~ YAT. .I.] 681 
An application for execution was filed. and the Executing Court also A 
cook action against Market Committee for disobedience. The stand of the 
Market Committee before and /or subsequent to the decree, and in the 
execution proceedings was that the decree was not executable. It appears that 
the High Court appointed an Advocate Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.