DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE v. SRI SATHEESH N., ADVOCATES FOR R-3)

REPRESENTED BY ITS' DIRECTORS SRI. SANJEETH KRISHNAPPA SMT. ASHREYA SATHYAKEERTHI OFFICE AT: NO.168/1,2, KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013. R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SRI. SANJEETH KRISHNAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, WARD NO.64, MAHALAKSHMI MANDIR ROAD, 9TH CROSS, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080.

3. SMT. ASHREYA SATHYA KEERTHI W/O SANJEETH KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT: NO.28, WARD NO.64, MAHALAKSHMI MANDIR ROAD, 9TH CROSS, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080. (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51028 WP No. 22077 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560 009.

SMT. T.R. SAROJA W/O S.M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.2175, 17TH A MAIN, 5TH C CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, OPP BANGALORE PUBLIC SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560 038. (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. PARIKSHITH MALIYE, ASHWIN KUMAR AND SRI SATHEESH N., ADVOCATES FOR R-3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET i.e HON'BLE ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NORTH SUB DIVISION IN MSC/CR/68/2024 DATED 30.07.2024 i.e. ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent, wherein the lease deed executed by Respondent No.3 (the mother) in favor of the petitioner was cancelled. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51028 WP No. 22077 of 2024

2. Respondent No.3 executed a registered lease deed dated 29.01.*2020 in favor of the petitioner concerning the subject property for a period of 29 years, on the condition that the petitioner would pay a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-, subject to an increase every five years.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No.3 filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2007”), alleging that the petitioner had failed to provide for her basic physical needs and amenities. Based on this petition, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the lease deed executed in favor of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.3, submits that the lease deed executed in favor of the petitioner has already been terminated through a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, dated 02.11.2024. He further contends that Respondent No.3 intends to exercise her rights and will invoke appropriate * corrected vide chamber order dated 20.12.2024 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51028 WP No. 22077 of 2024 remedies to delete the petitioner’s name from the property records.

Section 23 of the Act, 2007, addresses circumstances under which transfers of property may be deemed void. It provides that if a senior citizen transfers property by way of gift or otherwise, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to fulfill such conditions, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. In such cases, the transfer can, at the option of the transferor, be declared void by the Tribunal.

In the present case, Respondent No.3 did not transfer her right, title, or interest in the subject property to the petitioner. The lease deed in question merely granted the petitioner the right to lease the property for constructing a school, subject to the payment of rent at Rs.15,000/- per month, with periodic increments every five years. Therefore, the lease deed does not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act, 2007.

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the lease deed lacks jurisdiction and authority. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51028 WP No. 22077 of 2024

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 30.07.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 112