Dismissed

Arnold Mendonca v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/17729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Deputy Commissioner's revision order upholding a SARFAESI auction purchaser's mutation. The court held the auction purchaser acquired valid title through properly instituted recovery proceedings, and title claims cannot be agitated in limited mutation proceedings. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition challenging the revision order dismissed.

Arnold Mendonca Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36963 WP No. 17729 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.17729 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARNOLD MENDONCA S/O VICTOR MENDONCA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS EDEN ENCLAVE APARTMENT 2^ND FLOOR, FLAT NO.201 KAILASH COLONY PADAVA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD KADRI HILLS, KONCHADY POST MANGALORE CITY - 575 008

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 001

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR MUDIGERE TALUK MUDIGERE-577 132

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36963 WP No. 17729 of 2024

¶17

LEENA MISQUITH W/O J. B. MISQUITH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS COOVE POST, VILLAGE KOVEE TALAGURU HAND POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 160

¶18

NIRMALA NAZARATH M W/O VINCENT NAZARATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4^TH CROSS, KAIBATLU KADRI, KANKANADI POST MANGALORE-575 002

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.4; SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2024 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS NO.RP 1/2023 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36963 WP No. 17729 of 2024

¶26

2. The captioned writ petition is filed by petitioner assailing the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.1/2023 as per Annexure -A.

¶27

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶28

4. The subject matter of the petition are agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos.392, 393, 425. The petitioner assailing the mutation under MR No.H41/2016-17 certified by respondent No.3 – Tahasildar preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶29

5. Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner taking

¶30

cognizance of the registered Release Deed executed by respondent No.4, who is the sister of the petitioner, allowed the appeal and mutation was set-aside and

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:36963 WP No. 17729 of 2024

¶33

direction was issued to respondent No.3 – Tahasildar to mutate the petitioner’s name in terms of the registered Release Deed.

¶34

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by

¶35

respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner, the present respondent No.4, who was not a party to the appeal, preferred a revision and claimed that she is an auction purchaser of these petition lands. Respondent No.4 while preferring a revision placed on record all the relevant documents to substantiate that the mother of the petitioner herein had mortgaged the petition lands for having availed loan. The Bank, in view of default, initiated recovery proceedings and petition lands were subjected to auction by invoking provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'). Respondent No.4, therefore, claimed that she being an auction purchaser has acquired right and title and

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36963 WP No. 17729 of 2024

¶37

therefore, questioned the order passed by respondent No.2.

¶38

7. Respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner having examined the Auction Purchaser’s claim and all relevant records set-aside the order passed by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner.

¶39

8. On examination of the records, this Court has noticed that respondent No.4’s name was duly mutated to the revenue records way back in the year 2016. The petitioner while preferring an appeal questioning the mutation in favour of respondent No.5, however, did not implead respondent No.4, who had acquired right pursuant to the auction conducted by the Secured Creditor. Respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner having taken cognizance of these signification details has rightly allowed the revision and order passed by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner is set-aside. The petitioner and respondent No.5 cannot assert title over the property in question as these lands were subject matter of recovery

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:36963 WP No. 17729 of 2024

¶42

proceedings initiated under the provisions of the 'SARFAESI Act'. Respondent No.4 being a bonafide purchaser in an auction conducted by the Secured Creditor had acquired valid right and title. Therefore, the petitioner and respondent No.5 cannot agitate their right over the property, that too in mutation proceedings, wherein the scope of enquiry is very limited. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference as third parties rights are created in properly instituted recovery proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no indulgence can be granted.

¶43

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶44

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶45

NBM

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Arnold Mendonca v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arnold Mendonca v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Anitha R Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

V S Thimmegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Indresh H N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G. Sheela Vs the Govt of Karnataka

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka