Dismissed

G Hameed Basha S/O. Late G Imamsab v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2022WP/100969/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash registered sale deeds and restrain the Sub-Registrar from further registrations. The Court held that the earlier status quo order did not bar execution of sale deeds and that civil courts remain the competent forum for cancellation of registered documents, while reserving liberty for limitation issues. Quality: thin.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash sale deeds and restrain registration was dismissed; liberty to approach Civil Court reserved.

G Hameed Basha S/O. Late G Imamsab Vs the Tahasildar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100969 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 100969 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally
signed byVINAYAKA
B V
VINAYAKAB V Location:Dharwad
Date:
2022.06.09
10:21:36
+0530

¶9

G HAMEED BASHA S/O. LATE G IMAMSAB AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOKA VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BALLARI.

¶10

PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR, BALLARI.

¶14

THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BALLARI.

¶15

G. IBRAHIMSAB S/O LATE G. IMAMSAB, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO. 11, NEAR HONNAMMA TEMPLE, MOKA VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583 117.

¶16

PINJAR HONNURVALI ALIAS DUDEKUL HONNURVALLI S/O PINJAR HONNURSAB ALIAS DUDEKUL HONNURSAB, AGE. 62 YEARS, R/O. ROAD NO. 18/1009-24-H10, TILAKNAGAR, GUNTKAL CITY, ANANTPUR DISTRICT, A.P.CAMP,BALLARI-583 117.

¶17

N. MADHUSUDHAN S/O I. NARYANAPPPA, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.PLOT NO. 165, GOPALGOUDANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, KOULBAZAR, BALLARI, DIST.BALLARI-583 117.

¶18

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2, NOTICE TO R3 & R5 IS SERVED, NOTICE TO R4 RETURNED AS ‘REFUSED’)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 100969 of 2022

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED SALE DEED DATED 05.02.2018 BEARING NO.BLY-I-15733-2017-18 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.4 AND SALE DEED DATED 08.09.2021 BEARING NO.BLY-107344-2021-22 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.5 PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D & ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶25

The prayer in this writ petition is as follows:

¶26

i. Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction, order to quash/ set aside the impugned sale deed dated 05.02.2018 bearing No. BLY-I-15733-2017-18 executed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 and sale deed dated 08.09.2021 bearing No. BLY-1-07344-2021-22 executed by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 produced and marked as Annexure-D & E;

¶27

ii. By issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 the Sub-Registrar, Ballari from registering any sale deed pertaining to properties bearing Sy. Nos. 370/A, 293 and 294 measuring 3.00 Acres, 1.51 Acres and 70 cents respectively all are situated in Moka Village of Ballari Taluk and Dist. As per order dated 04.01.2013 in W.P. No. 75003/2013 vide Annexure-C and legal notice dated 14.02.2022 vide Annexure-F.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the

¶29

petitioner along with other persons had filed W.P. No. 75003/2013 challenging the order dated 06.12.2012 by virtue of which certain

¶30

¶31

WP No. 100969 of 2022

¶32

entries were made in the RTC. This Court by order dated 04.01.2013 noticed that the Deputy Commissioner has already directed the Tahasildar to consider orders passed by this Court and also the provisions of law and make appropriate entry in the revenue records and till then the parties were directed to maintain statusquo as on the date of the order. Nevertheless, the respondent No.3 has thereafter sold the property to respondent No.4 vide sale deed dated 05.02.2018 and in turn the respondent No.4 sold the property in favour of respondent No.5 herein under a sale deed dated 08.09.2021. The petitioner therefore seeks to set aside the registered sale deeds and to direct the respondent No.4, the Sub Registrar, Ballari preventing him from registering any other sale deed pertaining to properties bearing Sy. No. 370/A, 293 and 294 measuring 3 acres, 1.51 acres and 70 cents respectively, all situated at Moka village of Ballari Taluk.

¶33

Though notice is served on respondents No.3 and 4, they have remained absent. Notice issued to respondent No.4 has returned with a shara “refused”.

¶34

Learned Addl. Government Advocate, however submits that the prayer made in the writ petition to quash a registered sale

¶35

¶36

WP No. 100969 of 2022

¶37

deed, cannot be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the submission of the learned Addl. Government Advocate that such a declaration for cancellation of the sale deed can only be sought before a competent Civil Court.

¶38

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that office also had raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition stating that there is a remedy before the trial Court to challenge the sale deed. Learned counsel further submits that by order dated 04.04.2022 office objection was over-ruled. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to substantiate his contention as to whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could quash a registered sale deed, only on the ground that there was earlier a direction issued by this Court on 04.01.2013 in W.P. No. 75003/2013, while disposing of the matter, directing the parties to maintain statusquo till appropriate orders are passed by the Tahasildar in the matter of entries in the revenue records. In this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that the lis brought before this Court in W.P. No. 75003/2013 was in the matter of entries in the revenue records. Therefore, even if there was a direction issued by this

¶39

¶40

WP No. 100969 of 2022

¶41

Court, directing the parties to maintain statusquo till the Tahasildar could pass any order regarding entries in the RTCs, it cannot be stretched to contend that the parties were precluded from executing a sale deed. It could be argued by the contesting respondent that the direction to maintain statusquo was regarding the entry in the RTC.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner filed this writ petition no sooner he came to know about the registration of the two sale deeds and therefore the time taken by the petitioner before this Court should be considered while computing the period for filing a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deeds. The petitioner is entitled to seek such a relief even in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act.

¶43

Consequently, while dismissing the writ petition, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach a competent Civil Court seeking cancellation of the impugned sale deeds and to initiate contempt proceedings, if the petitioner is advised to file such a petition alleging disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 100969 of 2022

¶46

Needless to observe that the time taken by the petitioner before this Court shall also be taken into consideration for the purposes of limitation, both by the Civil Court as well as this Court if any proceedings is initiated at the hands of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.

¶47

SD JUDGE

¶48

BVV

G Hameed Basha S/O. Late G Imamsab v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Hameed Basha S/O. Late G Imamsab v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rekha W/O Ningappa Kolala Vs Sri. Ningappa S/O Shivalingappa Kolala

Vinayak Ramachandra Gayakawad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shashikala W/O Iranna Ganiger Vs Iranna S/O Shivaputrappa Ganiger

M/S Napc Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

M/S Napc Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

Suneel Vagu Salake Vs the State of Karnataka