Allowed

Shri T L Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2022WP/2972/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench of the High Court of Karnataka quashed an order conditionally withholding the entry of a sale deed purchaser in revenue records due to pending civil suits, directing authorities to reflect the sale deed subject to litigation outcomes.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order directing suspension of revenue entry; directed respondents to enter petitioner's name in revenue records on basis of sale deed subject to outcome of pending suits.

Shri T L Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.2972/2022 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI T.L. MANJUNATH, S/O T.M. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.145/3, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE & POST NANDUGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

¶13

¶14

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAKOTE TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶15

4 . THE TAHSILDAR, GRADE-2, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 5 . N. NAGESH, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NANDAGUDI VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 122.

¶16

6 . MANOJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NANDAGUDI VILLLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 122. 7 . SMT. NANJAMMA, D/O DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA, W/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. D. BASAVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. S. HARISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNEXURE-H THE ORDER DT.03.01.22

¶20

¶21

PASSED BY THE R4 IN RRT(DIS) BHOOMI NO.429/2021-22 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

It is not in dispute that the sale deed has been executed in favor of the petitioner on 15.11.2021 in respect of Sy.No.47 of Tavarekere Village.

¶24

As required under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, the name of the purchaser under the Registered Sale Deed would have to be reflected in the Revenue Records and accordingly, orders were passed to enter the name of the petitioner.

¶25

However, one Nanjamma appears to have given a representation to the Tahasildar stating that she has filed a suit in O.S.No.2148/2021 and in the said suit there was an interim order granted in her favor.

¶26

¶27

The Tahasildar on the basis of the said representation had proceeded to pass the impugned order stating that the Katha should not be affected on the basis of the Registered Sale Deed and in lieu of his earlier order, he has stated that the order passed by him would be subject to the ultimate result in O.S.No.2148/2021.

¶28

It is to be stated here that once there is a sale deed in respect of the land in question, the sale deed will have to be given effect to and the revenue entries will have to be accordingly muted. Merely because a suit has been filed and is pending, that cannot be a ground to stall the entry of name of the purchaser in Revenue Records. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained and same is accordingly quashed.

¶29

¶30

In this writ petition another application for impleading is filed contending that the impleading applicants also have a right in the property in question and they have also instituted a suit in O.S.No.149/2022, which is one for partition.

¶31

In my view, so long as there is a sale deed in favor of the petitioner, the authorities cannot refuse to enter his name in the Revenue Records, not withstanding the fact that there are civil suits pending in respect of the very same land.

¶32

Therefore, it would be necessary to direct the Revenue Authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in revenue records on the basis of the Registered Sale Deed in his favor.

¶33

It is however made clear that this entry would be subject to the ultimate result of O.S.No.2148/2021 and O.S.No.149/2022.

¶34

¶35

10. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶36

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.As.

¶37

also stand disposed of.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Shri T L Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri T L Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

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 Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Abdul Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M S Shankaranarayana Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Pv Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Veena N Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri H T Krishnappa Vs Shri B Nagarajaiah