Writ Petition No. 18786 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18786 OF 2024 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SRI BALAKRISHNA RAI S/O LATE LINGAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, URUVALU VILLAGE, KOKKADA HOBLI, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574241. (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU - 575001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB DIVISION, PUTTUR TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574201. 3. THE THASILDAR BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574241.
Legal Reasoning
same, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition. 5. Heard Sri S. Rajarama, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate of the respondents. 6. Sri. S. Rajarama, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the impugned letter at Annexure-K issued by respondent No.1 requires to be quashed. The petitioner has purchased the land in question in an auction conducted pursuant to the order passed by the recovery officer (N.441) and Assistant Director of Co-operative Society at Margosa Road, Bengaluru. He further contended that, in the event, if - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR any, violation of the grant order is made by the original grantees, the same has nothing to do with regard to purchase made by the petitioner herein in an auction, and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that, since the land in question has been mortgaged to the said bank in violation of the conditions imposed in the original grant order at Annexure-A, impugned letter dated 15.11.2023 at Annexure-K, issued by respondent No.1 need not be interfered with, and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the land in question has been granted in favour of one Sri Jayaram Shetty and Chandrashekar Shetty, as per the grant order at Annexure-A. It - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR appears that, the original grantee availed the loan from Sri Poornananda Vividodesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, Mangaluru, and having mortgaged the granted land, and on account of non-payment of loan amount, the land in question was auctioned. 9. It is also forthcoming that the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner and thereafter the RTC extracts stands in the name of the petitioner. In that view of the matter and taking into that, consideration, the petitioner herein has purchased the land in question in an auction conducted by the in an auction conducted pursuant to the order passed by the court of recovery officer (N.441) and Assistant Director of Co-operative Society, and thereafter the impugned letter addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 does not survive for consideration even if there is a violation of the conditions imposed in the grant order at Annexure-A. If at all the state government is concerning - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR about the violation of grant, as such, there is no impediment for the respondent-state to act immediately on the other hand auction is being conducted by statutory body. Therefore, any violation by the original grantee has nothing to do with the sale made in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-F. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly I Pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO. LND(2B)CR/212/2023-E- 253341/B7) DATED 15/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned letter dated 15.11.2023 at Annexure-K, issued by respondent No.1. 2. The facts in nutshell for adjudication in this writ petition is that, the land bearing Sy.No.106/1 in Urvalu Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District was granted to Sri Jayaram Shetty and Chandrashekar Shetty as per the grant order dated 29.04.2015 at Annexure-A. Thereafter, the land in question was converted to an extent of 0.05 cents, and in this regard, the Katha was changed in favour of the original grantees as per Annexure-C. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR 3. It is averred in this writ petition that, the original grantees have availed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Sri Poornananda Vividodesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, Mangaluru, and as such mortgaged the granted land in favour of the said bank and on account of non-payment of loan as defaulter, the land in question was auctioned on 01.09.2022, at the instance of the bank, in pursuant to the case in Execution No.KA.RA.SOU.SUM.NI/SA.SANI/VA.A/46/20-21, in the court of recovery officer (N.441) and Assistant Director of Co-operative Society at Margosa Road, Bengaluru. 4. In the said auction, the petitioner has purchased the land and thereafter, the sale certificate was issued as per Annexure-F. Thereafter, entire revenue records was changed in favour of the petitioner herein as per Annexures-G & H respectively. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner has paid entire auction amount. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR issued a letter dated 5.11.2023 to the respondent No.2 stating that the land in question has been mortgaged to the said bank in violation of conditions imposed in the grant order, and therefore, directed the respondent No.2 to issue an endorsement with regard to violation of conditions in the grant order. Being aggrieved by the
Decision
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned letter dated 05.11.2023 addressed by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. iii) In view of the same, the respondent No.3 is hereby directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in terms of the sale certificate issued as per Annexure-F to the writ petition - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21975 WP No. 18786 of 2024 HC-KAR iv) The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72