Appellant sought to set aside a sale deed registered pursuant to an earlier writ order. The court held such prayers could not be granted in writ jurisdiction, found no error in the Single Judge's dismissal, and held a civil suit was the proper remedy.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:31765-DB WA No. 865 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2024 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KRISHNAN REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, Location: High Court of DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, Karnataka M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HOSKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN W.P.No.426/2021 (GM-ST/RN) DATED 22.04.2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE W.P.No. 426/2021(GM-ST/RN) & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
As learned Single Judge, by his judgment and order dated 22.04.2024 did not grant the prayers made in the writ petition and dismissed the petition, the appellant-original petitioner has filed this writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
petition could not be granted in the writ jurisdiction. This submission could not be brushed aside lightly.
2.2 Even otherwise, looking into the facts of the case, no different conclusion could be arrived at, as highlighted herein below.
3.1 The petitioner thereafter applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to industrial purpose and further to commercial purpose under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The conversion was granted. Application was also made before the planning authorities for sanction of the plan.
3.2 After the conversion was allowed, when the application before the competent authority was pending which later culminated into issuance of commencement certificate for purpose of construction of commercial building, the petitioner entered into a Joint Development Agreement with respondent No.4.
3.3 It appears that a circular was issued on 06.04.2009 by the Government under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 for the purpose of registering the properties under the Gram Panchayats. One of the requirement under the circular was to make Form Nos.1 and 12 compulsory for registration of nonagricultural lands which was amended on 24.01.2013 to bring the circular within the requirements under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Rules, 2006. The amendment brought within its purview was for identification of a property prior to the registration. In the case of the petitioner, conversion was granted after the circular was made applicable.
3.4 Respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No.10582 of 2018 challenging the circular and calling in question the correctness of the said circular. The petitioner was however not a party to the said writ proceedings. The Registrar had declined to register the sale
deed. It appears that the writ petition was allowed. The Court directed respondent No.4-the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed by setting aside the endorsement.
3.5 The circular dated 06.04.2009 was however not quashed. It was also provided that two websites namely, E-Swathu and Kaveri should be corrected in line with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It is also noticed that the petitioner had filed impleadment application in those proceedings, which was not allowed. After the decision of the writ petition, contempt petition was filed by respondent No.4 against the non-compliance of the order dated 13.02.2019 of the writ petition.
3.6 During the pendency of the contempt petition, the SubRegistrar registered the sale deed. This development drew the petitioner to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.426 of 2021 for setting aside the sale deed dated 21.03.2019 registered during the pendency of writ appeals which were filed against the order dated 13.02.2019 in Writ Petition No.10582 of 2018 as well as the contempt proceedings.
the earlier proceedings which culminated into the order of Writ Petition No.10582 of 2018.
“The contention was recorded that the learned single Judge has directed to register the instrument dated 05-02-2018 and altogether different instrument is presented for registration. The writ appeal was disposed of reserving liberty to the parties to pursue the subject writ petition as by then the petitioner had already preferred the subject petition. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the 4th respondent has played fraud by getting registered a different sale deed is contrary to the facts. A perusal at the sale deed dated 5-02-2018 or the sale deed that is now registered relate to the same sharing of the Joint Development Agreement. Any further observation with regard to the veracity would come in the way of pending proceedings before the civil Court between the parties.”
NC: 2024:KHC:31765-DB WA No. 865 of 2024
5.1 Furthermore, several proceedings are pending before the
civil court in relation to the subject matter. It is also open to the petitioner to challenge the sale deed which is registered by initiating appropriate civil proceedings. For challenging the sale deed, remedy of civil suit is the proper remedy.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.
Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE
KPS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
2 issues framed by the court
Could a registered sale deed be set aside or declared void in writ jurisdiction?
Was the sale deed registered different from the instrument directed to be registered in earlier proceedings?
5 provisions across 5 enactments
V Prasad
The State of Karnataka, Department of Stamps and Registration
The Inspector-General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps
The Sub-Registrar, Hoskote
Manu N
N. V. Anjaria
K V Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
