Disposed

Sri H T Sathyanarayan v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023WP/28763/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a BDA endorsement requiring a no-objection certificate from KSFC before executing a sale deed, the Court noted the property is under attachment due to loan defaults. It disposed of the plea reserving liberty for further representation and directed BDA to execute the deed within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; BDA directed to execute sale deed within eight weeks after representations are made.

Sri H T Sathyanarayan Vs Bangalore Development… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 28763 OF 2017 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI H T SATHYANARAYAN

¶8

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶9

1(a) SMT. CHAMPAKA

¶10

W/O LATHA H.T. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶11

1(b) SRI. SATHISH

¶12

S/O LATE H.T. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶13

1(c) SANDHYARANI

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S/O LATE H.T. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶16

1(d) SAVITHA

¶17

D/O LATE H.T. SATHYANARAYANA S. SAMUDRA

¶18

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT OLD NO.82 NEW NO.5/2 VICTORIA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 047.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)

¶22

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶23

AND:

¶24

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560 020 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶25

DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-506 020.

¶26

KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD NEAR CONTONEMENT RAILWAY STATION BANGALORE -560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, CRS COMPLEX NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND N.B. ROAD, KOLAR - 563 130.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. VACHAN, B. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. GIRISH R. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.12.2016 BEARING NO.BDA/DSI/C-9309/DOMMALURU/16 12, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This petition is seeking for quash of endorsement dated 05.12.2016 issued by respondent No.2 as per

¶35

Annexure-J and for a direction to the respondents to execute deed of sale in favour of petitioner.

¶36

Brief facts leading upto filing of the present petition are that:

¶37

On 19.12.1979 respondent-BDA had allotted a house bearing No.C9-309 situated at II Stage, Dommalur Extension, Bangalore, in favour of the original petitioner Sri.H.T.Sathyanarayan and a possession certificate dated 01.09.1988 with a condition of non alienation for a period

¶38

of ten years was issued by the respondent-BDA. That the original petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.1,11,857/- as directed by respondent-BDA and further sum of

¶39

Rs.4,17,910/- was paid in the year 2015. That despite the above, respondent-BDA has not transferred the title of the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶42

subject property in favour of the original petitioner inspite of repeated request in that regard. That the khatha of the

¶43

said property has been registered in the name of the petitioner and a property identification number is assigned with PID No.72-10-C9/309. That since respondent-BDA

¶44

had failed to execute deed of sale in favour of the petitioner conveying the title in respect of the schedule property, petitioners had made several representations and the last one being on 24.11.2016. That in response to the representation, the respondent-BDA had issued an endorsement dated 05.12.2016 calling upon the petitioner to obtain no objection certificate from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation-respondent No.3 in this petition enabling respondent-BDA to process the request of the petitioner. It is this endorsement which is called in question in this petition.

¶45

Sri.Hemanth Kumar D., learned counsel for petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the

¶46

memorandum of petition submits that when the title of the

¶47

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶48

property is yet to be transferred in favour of the petitioner/now legal representatives [as original petitioner passed away during the pendency of this petition] by the respondent-BDA by executing deed of sale the question of requirement of obtaining no objection certificate from respondent No.3-KSFC would not arise. He submits that no charge of whatsoever nature is created by petitioner in favour of respondent No.3-KSFC at any point in time, as such, the insistence by respondent-BDA to obtain no objection certificate is unjustified. He further submits that the petitioners have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.44260/2015 against Respondent No.3 pertaining

¶49

to issue of one time settlement of loan transaction. Hence seeks to tag this matter with the said Writ petition. He also submits that Respondents -BDA may execute the deed of sale subject to the rights of Respondent No.3KSFC. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition by granting the relief as sought for.

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶51

In response Sri.Vachan B., learned counsel

¶52

appearing for the respondent-BDA drawing attention of this Court to a memo dated 19.07.2022 filed in this Court along with three documents submits that issuance of endorsement calling upon the petitioner to obtain the no objection certificate from KSFC was necessitated in view of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District vide Official Memorandum dated 08.11.2011 had directed the Special Tahsildar of KSFC to pass appropriate orders under Section 190 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to recover the outstanding sum of Rs.1,57,29,757/from the petitioners and that in

¶53

furtherance to the said official memorandum the Special Tahsildar (Bangalore Urban Zone) KSFC by an order of attachment of immovable properties passed under Section 165 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 dated 03.02.2012 has prohibited the original petitioner Sri.H.T.Sathyanarayana from transferring or creating any

¶54

charge in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule thereunder in which item No.1 of the property is

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶57

subject matter of this petition. Thus, he submits that in view of this order the BDA had issued impugned endorsement calling upon the petitioner to obtain no objection certificate from KSFC. No infirmity can be found with it and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶58

Sri.Girish R., learned counsel for Sri.Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supplementing the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent-BDA submits that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of loan amount which has presently accumulated in a sum of Rs.10,32,97,000/- and that the only assets available are those mentioned in the attachment order passed by Special Tahsildar. He submits that respondent No.3-KSFC is also contemplating initiating process to obtain deed of conveyance from BDA to have possession of the same to effectively implement the order of attachment. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶59

Heard and perused the records.

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶61

There is no dispute of the fact that the subject property was allotted by BDA in favour of original petitioner and deed of sale has not been executed till date. Though the learned counsel for petitioners submit that issue with regard to claim being made by respondent No.3-KSFC and process of one time settlement is pending consideration in a cognate W.P.No.44260/2015, the same may not be of any avail as regards consideration of the present writ petition.

¶62

As already noted above, the petitioner has obtained the khatha as contemplated under Section 114 of the Municipal Corporations Act from the BBMP. The proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 -KSFC are under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act pursuant to the order/official memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner as noted herein above. In view of the admitted position of petitioners being in arrears of payment of loan amount to respondent No.3-KSFC and the Tahsildar of respondent-KSFC having passed order of

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶65

attachment in pursuance to the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District no error or irregularity can be found in the impugned endorsement issued by respondent-BDA calling upon the petitioner to obtain no objection certificate from the respondent-No.3 KSFC. However, in the fact situation of the matter, this court is of considered view that the writ petition be disposed of reserving liberty to petitioners to make such representation as may be required both to the respondentBDA and respondent-KSFC enabling respondent-BDA to execute deed of sale, as sought for.

¶66

Needless to state that the respondent-KSFC may join with the petitioners in obtaining the deed of sale in favour of the petitioners, and take steps in furtherance to the order passed by Special Tahsildar attaching the aforesaid property.

¶67

With the above observation, petition is disposed of. On such representation being made by the petitioners and

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:36149 WP No. 28763 of 2017

¶69

10 -

¶70

respondent-KSFC, respondent-BDA shall initiate the process of executing the sale deed and conclude the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

SBN

Sri H T Sathyanarayan v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H T Sathyanarayan v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chandrakanth @ Chandrappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt Devika Vs the Commissioner

Smt Rekha H Vs the Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority

Mr. M. C. Ravindra Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Manjunatha Seva Trust Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri C M Venkataravanan Vs State of Karnataka