Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 13548 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. C. RAJASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE C V SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.221, 15TH A CROSS, 9TH MAIN,HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-6, BANGALORE-560 102 (BY SRI. SAGAR.S., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATRAJ SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANCHAYATRAJ OFFICER M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106
Legal Reasoning
3. SHRI H P SHASHIDHAR S/O H R POPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.28/6, 12TH CROSS,4TH MAIN ROAD, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 030 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HARAGADDE GRAMA PANCHYAT OFFICE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-560 105 (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. M.S.RAJENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. M.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:17.1.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-J, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner along with one Vemanna purchased the land bearing Sy.No.70/2 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas situate at Haragadde Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, under the registered Sale Deed dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 28.04.2005 from Ashwathamma and her son Sri H.P.Satyanarayana Reddy. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter his co- owner Vemanna executed a Release Deed in his favour on 18.07.2012 and thereafter the petitioner approached the Anekal Planning Authority for grant of approval to the layout plan and the Anekal Planning Authority, after collecting a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- and a further sum of Rs.14,77,500/- towards a cess on preservation of lake water proceeded to approve the plan after the petitioner executed the Relinquishment Deed on 31.10.2012. 3. Under this approval, the petitioner was permitted to sell 60% of the sites i.e., 111 sites. 4. On the strength of this approval of layout plan, the Gram Panchayat also registered the khatha in his favour. 5. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent raised objections before the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 contending that the land bearing Sy.No.70/2 was the subject matter of a registered Partition Deed dated 08.06.2001 whereunder the entire Sy.No.70/2 was allotted to the share of the 3rd respondent. It was his case that his mother and brother, who had sold the property to the petitioner, were in fact parties to this Partition Deed and despite being parties to the Partition Deed and knowing fully well that they had no right to alienate the property, had sold the property in favour of the petitioner. 6. He also contended that since Sy.No.70/2 had fallen to his share under the registered Partition Deed, the question of registering khatha in favour of the petitioner would not arise, more so, when the Partition Deed was of the year 2001, i.e., nearly four years prior to the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner. 7. The PDO, however, negatived this claim on the ground that the khatha was made out in the name of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 the petitioner on the basis of the approved layout plan by the Anekal Planning Authority and therefore, he could not take cognizance of a Partition Deed which has been registered earlier in respect of property in question. 8. This order was challenged by preferring an appeal and the Executive Officer has by the impugned order set aside the order and directed that khatha be registered in the name of the 3rd respondent and also granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to seek for appropriate decree from the Court which would in the ultimate analyses bind the parties. 9. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court. 10. As already stated above, the petitioner purchased the said land i.e.,Sy.No.70/2 under the registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.2005. No doubt in this registered Sale Deed, there is a reference to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 Partition Deed dated 08.06.2001 under which the 3rd respondent claims that the entire land was allotted to him. However, the fact remains that on the basis of this registered Sale Deed, the Planning Authority approved the layout plan in favour of the petitioner and also released 60% of the sites for being sold. 11. In my view, since the Planning Authority has recognized the title of the petitioner and has approved the layout plan after collecting nearly Rs.26 lakhs and permitted him to sell 60% of the sites formed therein and also secured a Relinquishment Deed, it would be improper at this stage to hold that the petitioner had not acquired any title. The 3rd respondent shall, however, be entitled to approach the Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit and seek for a declaration that he is the owner and the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner by his mother and brother was non-est, since the entire property had fallen to his share under the registered - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 Partition Deed dated 08.06.2001. If the 3rd respondent were to succeed in said suit, it is obvious that the authorities would have to abide by the result of said suit. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-J is quashed and as a result the Khatha shall be restored in the name of the petitioner. 12. Liberty is, however, reserved to the 3rd respondent to file an appropriate suit. It is also made clear that the khatha registered in the name of the petitioner would be subject to the result of the suit that is to be filed by the 3rd respondent. 13. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent seeks three weeks’ time to institute a suit and requests for an order of status-quo. 14. In my view, this request is reasonable and hence, three weeks’ time is granted to the 3rd respondent to file a suit and until then, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017 15. It is needless to state that nothing said in this order shall be construed as rendering any opinion on the merits of the case.
Decision
16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35