This court quashed the communication requesting an FIR and the recommendation related to illegal Khatha registration and sale of government land, allowing the writ petition after the petitioners compensated the buyer.
The writ petition is allowed; the impugned communication dated 13.10.2016 and the recommendation dated 3.1.2017 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.1468 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
-2-
... RESPONDENTS
(SRI S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 AND R5 SRI M. NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCE FOR R.2, 3 & 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE REMINDER DTD13.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNXURE-J, QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION DTD 3.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANENXURE-M AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Sri.M.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel accepts notice
for respondent No.3.
subject property submitted an application to respondent No.4 to register the khatha in his favour. Respondent No.4
after inviting objections from the public registered the
-3-
khatha in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of the subject property. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 sold the subject property in favour of petitioner No.2. Since the said property was identified for construction of a community hall, petitioner No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.4.
submits that khatha was registered in favour of petitioner
-4-
No.1 after inviting objections from the public, if any, The petitioners have repaid the sale consideration received from respondent No.4 and also possession was handed over in favour of respondent No.4. Hence, he submits that impugned communication issued by respondent No.4 requesting respondent No.5 to lodge the FIR, in the absence of commission of any offence by the petitioners is impermissible.
-5-
-6-
No.4 to lodge the FIR after having received the sale consideration is impermissible. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned communication dated
13.10.2016 issued by respondent No.2 and communication
dated 03.01.2017 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-
M are hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
SKS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the communication issued to lodge an FIR for illegal registration of khatha and sale of government property is maintainable after the petitioners repaid the sale consideration and surrendered
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri.K. Venkataswamy Gowda
Sri.Chan Pasha
The State of Karnataka
Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath Kolar
Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Malur
Sub Inspector of Police Malur
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
