Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are the licence traders functioning in the market yard of Bandipalya, APMC Yard, Mysore. The second respondent developed a market yard vide Annexure-G in the year 1999-2000. In respect of the area in ‘A’ block there was remodified layout plan vide Annexure-R1. The petitioners are the occupants of shop Nos.39 and 17 situated in ‘A’ block. In the original plan to the frontage of shop No.17 and the behind portion of shop Nos.39, 40, 41 the large area is shown as vacant. A high tension wire is running over the portion of the said vacant area. The 3rd respondent in fact had formed two sites in the said vacant area, and because of the high tension wire passing over the said area, the two sites which were allotted to the allottees was withdrawn vide Annexure-E and the allottees were relocated. 2. The 3rd respondent vide Annexure-R1-the modified layout plan, has formed site No.316 allotted to the front site No.17 and high portion of site No.39 and site No.40 the same is allotted to respondent No.5. The petitioners contend that the original layout plan at Annexure-G and remodified layout plan at Annexure-R1 are illegal, because there is no sanction obtained from respondent No.4, who is the planning authority. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the layout plan has been tampered and that the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore has submitted a report in that regard. The modified layout plan has been done buckling to the political pressure to accommodate respondents 5 to 7. In the light of the above facts, the petitioners pray that respondents 2 and 3 not to give effect to the modified layout plan and not to allot site No.316 to anybody and for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to comply with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (for short ‘Act’). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the following contentions to oppose the modified layout plant at Annexure-R1:- (1) The original plan at Annexure-G and modified plan at Annexure-R1 are illegal, because no written permission is taken from the planning authority as required under the Act. Therefore, the formation of the market yard at Bandipalya, as illegal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the following contentions to oppose the modified layout plant at Annexure-R1:- (1) The original plan at Annexure-G and modified plan at Annexure-R1 are illegal, because no written permission is taken from the planning authority as required under the Act. Therefore, the formation of the market yard at Bandipalya, as illegal. (2) The area where site No.316 in Annexure-R1 is formed was shown as a vacant area in the layout plan at Annexure-G. The said area was kept vacant because a high tension wire was running over the said area. Therefore, it was found not feasible to use the said area for construction of shop premises. In the said vacant area two sites were formed and were allotted. The same came to be withdrawn vide Annexure-G and the said allottees have been given alternative sites. When once it was found that the said area is not feasible for construction of shop premises, it is impermissible to change their stand and create sites in the said area to favour respondents 5 to 7. (3) The report of the Deputy Commissioner discloses that he had passed a resolution showing allotment of sites to certain individuals. The Secretary later on has tampered the resolution changing the dimension of the site and the numbers and that there is fraud played by way of fabrication of records by the Secretary. (4) The respondents 5 to 7 have been allotted sites in the disputed area on account of political influence. In view of the said contention it is contended that the layout plans prepared at Annexures ‘G’ and ‘R1’ have to be quashed. The respondents 2 and 3 should be directed to comply with the provisions of the Act. 5. Sri. Manjunath P.S., learned Counsel for the 4th respondent supported the arguments of the petitioners to the effect that there is no sanction of layout plan obtained and that there is no compliance of provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act. 6. The provisions of Section 81-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act declares that upon consideration of Urban Development Authorities for the cities, the Town and Country Planning Authority ceases to have the jurisdiction over the area and that Urban Development Authority will be the Town Planning Authority. 7. 6. The provisions of Section 81-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act declares that upon consideration of Urban Development Authorities for the cities, the Town and Country Planning Authority ceases to have the jurisdiction over the area and that Urban Development Authority will be the Town Planning Authority. 7. The provisions of Section 9(3) and Section 146(K) and Rules 70, 71 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 reads as follows: Section 9(3): Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every market committee shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be a local authority. Section 146(K): The preparation of plans and estimates for works proposed to be constructed at the expense of a market committee or the Board and the grant of sanction of such plans and estimates; Rules 70: Preparation of plans.-(1) Annual action plan in respect of the works to be undertaken during the ensuing year shall be prepared and submitted by the market committee before November of every year. After scrutiny, the Director of Agricultural Marketing shall communicate appropriate approval before December of the current year. The preparation of plans and estimates for works proposed to be undertaken at the expense of the market committee will be attended by the Engineering cell of Department of Agricultural Marketing. However the market committee may consult an Architect or an Engineer for the preparation of Plans and Estimates. (2) The Market Committee while preparing the General Fund Budget shall reserve 5% of the capital cost of the building of the Market Committee for maintenance and repairs. Maintenance and annual repairs be completed before December of every year. Separate approval of Director of Agricultural Marketing is not necessary for taking up these works. Rule 71: Approval of plans and estimate.-(1) Plans and Estimate for works as approved by Director of Agricultural Marketing under the Annual Action Plan under Rule 70 shall be technically examined by the competent officer of the Engineering Cell of the Department and the Engineering cell shall technically scrutinize and sanction the plans and estimates received from the market committee within thirty days from the receipt. (2) The Plans and estimates for works which are of urgent nature, the estimated cost of which does not exceed the maximum amount specified in column (2) of the table below, may be sanctioned by the market committee after getting the plans and estimates technically examined and approved by the Assistance Executive Engineer, Engineering Cell of the Agricultural Marketing Department. The market committee shall before taking up execution of the works under this sub-rule send copies of the plan and estimate to the Director of Agricultural Marketing or authorized officer with a report regarding necessity of the work taken up. Provided that the expenditure incurred under this rule shall be included in the supplementary budget and got approved. 8. Rule 70 and 71 makes it mandatory that every market committee in respect of the works to be undertaken for the year, they should prepare the estimate and also plans and that the same have to be approved by the Director of Agricultural Marketing with consultation with the engineering section. The market committee is a local authority, independently can plan and develop the market yards subject to the condition that the said plans and estimates have to be proved by the Director of marketing. 9. The provisions of Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 declares that,- “no person shall form or attempt to form any extension or layout without express sanction of the Urban Development Authority”. The provision declares that if the said extension or layout is to be formed within the limits of local authority, the Urban Development Authority shall not sanction the formation of layout or extension without the concurrence of the local authority. The effect of the provision makes it mandatory for the Urban Development Authority to take concurrence of the local authority, in case the layout or development falls within the limits of the local authority. In other words the Urban Development Authority does not have an independent jurisdiction to grant sanction for development of layouts without the concurrence of the local authority of in respect of area lying within the jurisdiction of the local authority. The local authority is not subordinate to the Urban Development Authority. On the other hand, it is the Urban Development Authority without the concurrence of the Local Authority cannot make developments. The local authority is not subordinate to the Urban Development Authority. On the other hand, it is the Urban Development Authority without the concurrence of the Local Authority cannot make developments. The provisions of the APMC Act makes it very clear that the committee is deemed to be a local authority. 10. Therefore, the combined reading of the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, suggest that for development of market yards it is not necessary for the committee to obtain sanction from the Town Planning Authority or the Urban Development Authority. The committee has to seek for the approval of the Director of Marketing. In that view the contention that the plans at Annexure-G and modified plan at Annexre-R1 are illegal for want of sanction from the Planning Authority, is an untenable contention. 11. In the original plan at Annexure-G the disputed area was kept vacant. Annexure-A discloses that two sites which were formed and allotted were withdrawn on the ground that high tension wire seen over the area and the said allottees have been granted sites elsewhere. The contention that when once the site formed, is cancelled and allottees are relocated, it is impermissible for the 3rd respondent to form a site in the said area does not appear to be a tenable contention. The fact that high tension wire runs over a particular area does not make the area inhabitable. The only restriction for habitation would be with regard to the height of the building and to maintain safe distance between the power line and building height. The allottees who are displaced can have grievance but not for the petitioners to question the impugned allotment. In fact the said two allottees have no grievance and they support the 3rd respondent. 12. The contention that the resolution passed by the Deputy Commissioner was tampered by the Secretary and that is indicated in the report of the Deputy Commissioner is of no consequence. If at all any such manipulation has taken place in changing the dimension and numbers of the sites, the persons affected should question the same. It does to enable the petitioner to question the act. 13. If at all any such manipulation has taken place in changing the dimension and numbers of the sites, the persons affected should question the same. It does to enable the petitioner to question the act. 13. The contention that buckling in the political pressure the sites are formed in the disputed area and allotted to respondents 5 to 6 is not supported with any material. The disputed area was left out vacant which otherwise cold be usefully used for commercial purposes. The construction of shop underneath keeping safe distance will not be hazardous to anybody and using the said space for economic activity without any risk or danger cannot be assailed as malafide. For the reasons and discussions made above, writ petition is dismissed.