Shri. C. Rajashekar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. M.S.RAJENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. M.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:17.1.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-J, ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner along with one Vemanna purchased the land bearing Sy.No.70/2 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas situate at Haragadde Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, under the registered Sale Deed dated

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017

¶29

28.04.2005 from Ashwathamma and her son

¶30

Sri H.P.Satyanarayana Reddy.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter his coowner Vemanna executed a Release Deed in his favour on 18.07.2012 and thereafter the petitioner approached the Anekal Planning Authority for grant of approval to the layout plan and the Anekal Planning Authority, after collecting a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- and a further sum of Rs.14,77,500/towards a cess on preservation of lake water proceeded to approve the plan after the petitioner executed the Relinquishment Deed on 31.10.2012.

¶32

Under this approval, the petitioner was permitted to sell 60% of the sites i.e., 111 sites.

¶33

On the strength of this approval of layout plan, the Gram Panchayat also registered the khatha in his favour.

¶34

Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent raised objections before the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO)

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017

¶37

contending that the land bearing Sy.No.70/2 was the subject matter of a registered Partition Deed dated 08.06.2001 whereunder the entire Sy.No.70/2 was allotted to the share of the 3^rd respondent. It was his case that his mother and brother, who had sold the property to the petitioner, were in fact parties to this Partition Deed and despite being parties to the Partition Deed and knowing fully well that they had no right to alienate the property, had sold the property in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

He also contended that since Sy.No.70/2 had fallen to his share under the registered Partition Deed, the question of registering khatha in favour of the petitioner would not arise, more so, when the Partition Deed was of the year 2001, i.e., nearly four years prior to the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶39

The PDO, however, negatived this claim on the ground that the khatha was made out in the name of

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017

¶41

the petitioner on the basis of the approved layout plan by the Anekal Planning Authority and therefore, he could not take cognizance of a Partition Deed which has been registered earlier in respect of property in question.

¶42

This order was challenged by preferring an appeal and the Executive Officer has by the impugned order set aside the order and directed that khatha be registered in the name of the 3^rd respondent and also granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to seek for appropriate decree from the Court which would in the ultimate analyses bind the parties.

¶43

Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

As already stated above, the petitioner purchased the said land i.e.,Sy.No.70/2 under the registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.2005. No doubt in this registered Sale Deed, there is a reference to the

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017

¶47

Partition Deed dated 08.06.2001 under which the 3^rd respondent claims that the entire land was allotted to him. However, the fact remains that on the basis of this registered Sale Deed, the Planning Authority approved the layout plan in favour of the petitioner and also released 60% of the sites for being sold.

¶48

In my view, since the Planning Authority has recognized the title of the petitioner and has approved the layout plan after collecting nearly Rs.26 lakhs and permitted him to sell 60% of the sites formed therein and also secured a Relinquishment Deed, it would be improper at this stage to hold that the petitioner had not acquired any title. The 3^rd respondent shall, however, be entitled to approach the Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit and seek for a declaration that he is the owner and the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner by his mother and brother was non-est, since the entire property had fallen to his share under the registered

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:6387 WP No. 13548 of 2017

¶51

Partition Deed dated 08.06.2001. If the 3^rd

¶52

respondent were to succeed in said suit, it is obvious that the authorities would have to abide by the result of said suit. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-J is quashed and as a result the Khatha shall be restored in the name of the petitioner.

¶53

Liberty is, however, reserved to the 3^rd respondent to file an appropriate suit. It is also made clear that the khatha registered in the name of the petitioner would be subject to the result of the suit that is to be filed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶54

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent seeks three weeks’ time to institute a suit and requests for an order of status-quo.

¶55

In my view, this request is reasonable and hence, three weeks’ time is granted to the 3^rd respondent to file a suit and until then, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo.

¶56