Anantharaja Charitable Trust Vs the Assistant Registrar of

ANANTHARAJA CHARITABLE TRUST UDUPI MANGALORE MAIN ROAD AT KAPU, KAPU TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106 A REGISTERED CHARITABLE TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI K.P.ACHARYA S/O LATE ANANTHA RAJA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT MALLAR VILLAGE, POST KAPU UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI: RAMACHANDRA G BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION KUNDAPURA TOWN UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

KAUP AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AT KAUP, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106.

¶22

REP BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI: M CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR A DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 29-4-2025 ISSUED IN EXECUTION NO.21/2020-21 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND RECOVERY OFFICER, KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION, KUNDAPURA PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREC TO THE WRIT PETITION, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE TRUST I.E SY. NO.39/4P7 NOW IT IS PHODED AND RE-NUMBERED AS 39/4B5 MEASURING 0.50 CENTS SITUATED AT MALLAR VILLAGE, KAUP HOBLI AND KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT AS WELL AS LANDS IN SY. NO.40 NOW IT IS PHODED AND RE-NUMBERED AS 40/3B4 TO AN EXTENT OF 23 CENTS SITUATED AT MALLAR VILLAGE, KAUP HOBLI AND KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT, WHICH IS AT ITEM NOS.3 AND 4 IN THE SALE PROCLAMATION ANNEXURE-C HEREIN. AND ETC.,

¶26

IN WP NO. 16658/2025

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SHWETHA D ACHARYA D/O SRI. K.P. ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT MALLAR VILLAGE, POST KAPU, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

(BY SRI: RAMACHANDRA G BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION KUNDAPURA TOWN UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106.

¶35

KAUP AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AT KAUP, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106. REP BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI. M. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 29-4-2025 ISSUED IN EXECUTION NO.21/2020-21 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND RECOVERY OFFICE, KUNDAPURA SUBDIVISION, KUNDAPURA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WP, INSOFAR AS RELATES TO THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.40/3/B3 OF MALLAR VILLAGE, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT WHICH IS AT ITEM NO.7 IN ANNEXURE -B HEREIN TO THE PETITIONER; DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 NOT TO SELL PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.40/3/B3 OF MALLAR VILLAGE, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT WHICH IS AT ITEM NO.7 IN ANNEXURE-B HEREIN BELONGING TO THE PETIITONER AND ETC.,

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶40

4 -

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

IN WP NO. 26325/2025

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

SRI K P ACHARYA S/O LATE ANANTHARAJA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT MALLAR VILLAGE, POST KAPU UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT

¶45

…PETITIONER

¶46

(BY SRI: RAMACHANDRA G BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION KUNDAPURA TOWN UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106.

¶49

KAUP AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AT KAUP, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106. REP BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI: M. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2025 PASSED IN EXECUTION NO.21/20-21 (DISPUTE NO.314/2017-18) BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPURA, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C2 TO THE WRIT PETITION, INSOFAR AS

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶54

5 -

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

IT RELATES TO SY.NO.39/10 MEASURING 0.22 ACRES, BEARING PROPERTY NUMBER 4370280138 HAVING THE SITE MEASUREMENT OF 890.28 SQ.METERS, SY.NO.40/3B1 MEASURING 0.12.60 ACRES HAVING PROPERTY NUMBER 2126365296 WITH SITE MEASUREMENT OF 509.94 SQ.METERS ALONG WITH BUILDING MEASUREMENT OF 1224.49 SQ.METERS AND ALSO BEARING DOOR NUMBER 1-79-1-82, SY.NO.39/B7 MEASURING 0.20 ACRES HAVING PROPERTY NUMBER 4935838753 HAVING SITE MEASUREMENT OF 809.37 SQ.METERS ALONG WITH BUILDING MEASUREMENT OF 2726.36 SQ.METERS BEARING DOOR NUMBER 1-80 AND SY.NO.40/3B1 MEASURING 0.31.43 ACRES BEARING PROPERTY NUMBER 3151672781, HAVING SITE MEASUREMENT NUMBER 1271.81 SQ.METERS; B) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION DATED 02.07.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C FILED UNDER RULE 38(5)(A) OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES; C) AND TO ISSUE SUCH OTHER APPROPRAITE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH THE PETITONER IS ENTITLED TO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶57

IN WP NO. 26326/2025

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

SHWETHA D ACHARYA D/O SRI K.P. ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT MALLAR VILLAGE, POST KAPU UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT

¶60

…PETITIONER

¶61

(BY SRI: RAMACHANDRA G BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶62

AND:

¶63

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF

¶64

6 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION KUNDAPURA TOWN UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106.

¶68

KAUP AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AT KAUP, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106. REP BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT

¶69

…RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI: M CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶71

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2025 PASSED IN EXECUTION NO.21/2021 (DISPUTE NO.314/2017-18) BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPURA, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C3 TO THE WRIT PETITION, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO SY.NO.40/3B3 MEASURING 0.25 ACRES, BEARING PROPERTY NUMBER 2442695046 MEASURING 1012.08 SQ.METERS ALONG WITH BUILDING MEASURING 1259.48 SQ.METERS HAVING DOOR NUMBER 1-81 SITUATED AT WARD NO.16-JANARDHANA TEMPLE WARD, OF MALLAR VILLAGE OF KAPU TALUK; B) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR APPROPRAITE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER HER APPLICATION DATED 02/07/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C FILED UNDER RULE 38(5)(A) OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES; C) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶73

7 -

¶74

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER HER APPLICATION DATED 02/07/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C2 FILED UNDER RULE 41 OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES AND ETC.,

¶75

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶76

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶77

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶78

The petitioner - Anantharaja Charitable Trust (for short 'the Trust') represented by its Managing Trustee - Sri K P Acharya in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025, is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the sale proclamation dated 29.04.2025 issued in Execution No.21 of 2020-21 on the file of respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-C, insofar as it relates to two items of properties mentioned therein.

¶79

The petitioner - Shwetha D Acharya in Writ Petition No.16658 of 2025, is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the very same sale proclamation produced as per Annexure-B relating to the property mentioned therein and to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to sell the said property which is shown as item No.7 in Annexure-B, as the same belongs to the petitioner.

¶80

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶81

The petitioner - K P Acharya in Writ Petition

¶82

No.26325 of 2025, is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Execution No.21 of 2020-21 by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-C2, insofar as it relates to the properties mentioned in the petition and to direct respondent No.1 to consider the application dated 02.07.2025 produced as per Annexure-C filed under Rule 38(5)(a) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules' for short).

¶83

The petitioner - Shwetha D Acharya in Writ Petition No.26326 of 2025, who is also the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16658 of 2025, is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Execution No.21 of 2020-21 by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexures-C3 in respect of the property referred therein and seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider her application dated 02.07.2025 produced as per Annexures-C and C2 filed under Rules 38(5)(a) and 41 of the KCS Rules, respectively.

¶84

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

Facts of the case in brief in Writ Petition No.16663

¶87

of 2025 are that, the Trust referred to above has filed this petition challenging the sale proclamation dated 29.04.2025 produced as per Annexure-C, insofar as it relates to Sy.No.39/4P7, new No.39/4B5 measuring 50 cents, situated at Mallar Village, Kapu Hobli and Taluk, Udupi District and the land bearing Sy.No.40, new No.40/3B4 measuring 23 cents, situated at Mallar Village, Kapu Hobli and Taluk, Udupi District, which are shown as item Nos.3 and 4, in the sale proclamation Annexure-C. It is contented by the Trust that it is a Charitable Trust established under the provisions of Indian Trust Act registered on 04.05.1992. As per the trust deed dated 25.04.1992 produced as per Annexure-A, the Trust acquired property in Sy.No.39/4P7 measuring 0.50 cents under the sale deed dated 07.05.2004 and the RTC stands in its name. Similarly, the Trust purchased 23 cents in Sy.No.40 of Mallar Village and the RTC stands in its name. The Trust has established educational institutions by name Vidyanikethan Public School, Nursing College and PU College by constructing the buildings on the aforesaid lands.

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

It is contented that neither the petitioner - Trust

¶92

nor its members have obtained any loan from respondent No.2. None of the properties referred to above belonging to the Trust were mortgaged in favour of respondent No.2. But it was learnt by the petitioner that respondent No.2 has instituted recovery proceedings by raising a dispute with respondent No.1, alleging that the petitioner - Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee and his wife have availed loan in their personal capacity from respondent No.2 and managed to get an award in its favour. The petitioner- Trust is not a party to the dispute nor to the execution proceedings in EP.No.21 of 2020-2021. There is no

¶93

decree or award passed against the Trust and under such circumstances, the properties belonging to the Trust could not have been sold.

¶94

It is stated that the sale proclamation as per Annexure-C was issued without any basis. The petitioner was never served with any notice of attachment before judgment as required under Rule 34(3) and Rule 38(2)(a) and (c) of KCS Rules. Under such circumstances, the petitioner sought for quashing the said proclamation dated 29.04.2025 issued by

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶97

respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-C insofar as it relates to two properties referred to above belonging to the Trust.

¶98

Facts of the case in brief in Writ Petition No.16658 of 2025 are that, the petitioner - Smt Shwetha D Acharya being the daughter of K P Acharya, has filed this petition contending that she is the absolute owner of the land measuring 25 cents situated at Mallar Village, Kapu Hobli and Kapu Taluk, Udupi District. She had taken loan from the DK District Central Cooperative Bank (for short "District Co-operative Bank"), but she was neither a member nor a borrower from respondent No.2Society, which instituted recovery proceedings against her father Sri K P Acharya and mother Smt Sarojini P Acharya alleging that they have availed loan of Rs.50,00,000/- each and got an award passed by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexures-A and A1. It is contented that respondent No.2 has instituted execution proceedings seeking recovery of Rs.16,06,46,403/- against her father and also against the petitioner. In executing the award, the property bearing Sy.No.40/3/B3 of Mallar Village belonging to the petitioner

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶101

shown as Item No.7 in Annexure-B was brought for sale and the public auction was scheduled to be held on 13.06.2025 at 11.30 a.m. The sale proclamation dated 29.04.2025 was issued in Execution No.21 of 2020-21 by respondent No.1. The petitioner has filed her objections as per Annexure-B1 and requested respondent No.1 to withdraw the proclamation relating to her property. It is stated that no auction was held on 13.06.2025.

¶102

The petitioner contended that she is neither the member of respondent No.2 - Society nor she mortgaged her property in its favour. Under such circumstances, respondent No.1 could not have attached the property belonging to the petitioner and issued sale proclamation. It is contented that the property in question belonging to the petitioner was mortgaged in favour of District Co-operative Bank, as mentioned in the proclamation itself. Therefore, it is contented that the proclamation issued to sell the property for respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 is illegal and cannot be permitted.

¶103

It is contented that the petitioner had approached Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru against the award

¶104

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶105

passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal Nos.194/2020 to 198/2020, but the same came to be dismissed for default, since the petitioner had not deposited 50% of the award amount. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the respondents could not have brought her property for sale for the award that was passed and the sale proclamation was not in accordance with law. Accordingly, prays for allowing the petition.

¶106

Facts of the case in brief in Writ Petition No.26325 of 2025 are that, the petitioner - Sri K P Acharya has filed this petition contending that he is the absolute owner of the land measuring 22 cents in Sy.Nos.39/10, 40/3B1, 39/4B7 and 40/3B1 situated at Mallar Village, Kapu Hobli and Kapu Taluk, Udupi District. Respondent No.2 - Society instituted recovery proceedings against him and his wife Smt Sarojini Acharya alleging that they have taken loan of Rs.50,00,000/- each and were in arrears of a sum of Rs.43,55,574/- and Rs.44,82,742/totaling to Rs.88,38,316/-. The dispute was registered in Nos.312/2017-18, 313/2017-18, 314/2017-18 and 315/201718 before the Arbitrator and the Recovery Officer i.e.,

¶107

14 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶109

respondent No.1 and the award came to be passed. Respondent No.2 instituted execution proceedings against the borrowers through respondent No.1 for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,06,46,403/- and brought few properties for sale by proclaiming it by public auction scheduled to be held on 13.06.2025. The sale proclamation is produced as per Annexure-A.

¶110

It is contended that the petitioner - Sri K P Acharya

¶111

is a cancer patient and is unable to walk even for a short distance. Therefore, his daughter Smt Shwetha D Acharya was present on 13.06.2025 before respondent No.2 - Society. It is stated that respondent No.1 being Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation, but he was not present in the office to hold the auction sale. It is contended that no buyers were present. Therefore, on 17.06.2025 the petitioner approached respondent No.1 and requested for details of the proposed sale including

¶112

the proceedings of the auction held on 13.06.2025. It is contended that nobody made the initial deposit, which is mandatory as per sale proclamation. The petitioner suspected

¶113

15 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶115

that the respondents have concocted certain documents in collusion with one another.

¶116

It is contended that the petitioner submitted a request letter dated 17.06.2025 produced as per Annexure-B. But the respondents never considered the said request and furnished the details or documents as requested. Another letter dated 19.06.2025 was also addressed, which is produced as per Annexure-B1. The details that are required by the petitioner was deliberately denied. Therefore, the petitioner has filed her objections dated 02.07.2025 under Rule 38(5)(a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, produced as per Annexures-C and C1 within 30 days as required under law. Instead of considering the said objections, the respondents proceeded to communicate the order dated 22.07.2025 produced as per Annexure-C2 by confirming the alleged auction sale in an arbitrary manner, which is opposed to principle of natural justice. The said order Annexure-C2 was communicated to the petitioner only on 09.08.2025. Therefore, the petitioner

¶117

has approached this Court seeking reliefs as stated above to quash the order at Annexure-C2, insofar as it relates to

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶119

16 -

¶120

Sy.No.39/10 measuring 0.22 acres having property bearing No.4370280138 measuring 890.28 sq.mts, Sy.No.40/3B1 measuring 0.12.60 acres having property No.2126365296 measuring 509.94 sq.mts along with building measuring 1224.49 sq.mts and also door No.1-79-1-82, Sy.No.39/B7 measuring 0.20 acres having property bearing No.4935838753 measuring 809.37 sq.mts along with the building measuring 2726.36 sq.mts, door No.1-80, Sy.No.40/3B1 measuring 0.31.43 acres bearing property No.3151672781 measuring 1271.81 sq.mts and to direct respondent No.1 to consider her application Annexure-C.

¶121

Facts of the case in brief in Writ Petition No.26326 of 2025 are that, the petitioner - Smt Shwetha D Acharya who is also the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16658 of 2025 has filed this petition contending that she is the absolute owner of the land measuring 25 cents situated at Mallar Village, Kapu Hobli and Taluk, Udupi District. She had taken the loan from the DK District Central Co-operative Bank, but she was not the member of respondent No.2 - Society. However, respondent No.2 instituted recovery proceedings against her father K P

¶122

17 -

¶123

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶124

Acharya and her mother Smt Sarojini Acharya and awards came to be passed by respondent No.1 in that regard. Respondent No.2 instituted execution case with respondent No.1 for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,06,46,403/-. The properties belonging to her father K P Acharya and also the property belonging to the petitioner were brought for sale. The auction sale was scheduled to be held on 13.06.2025. The sale proclamation dated 29.04.2025 is produced as per Annexure-A. The petitioner has approached respondent No.1 and filed her objections stating that she never borrowed any amount from respondent No.2 and her property could not have been brought for sale. Without considering the objections, the respondents proceeded to issue the sale proclamation as per Annexure-A. The petitioner had challenged Annexure-A, insofar as it relates to her property bearing survey No.40/3B3 measuring 25 cents along with the building situated therein at Mallar Village shown as item No.7 by filing Writ Petition No.16658 of 2025. The said writ petition is still pending for consideration.

¶125

The petitioner contended that on 13.06.2025 the petitioner was present in respondent No.2 - Society, but

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶127

18 -

¶128

respondent No.1 was not present in the Society. No sale was

¶129

taken place as no buyers were present there. Immediately, she approached respondent No.1 and requested for the details and documents regarding conducting of auction dated 13.06.2025. The request letter dated 17.06.2025 as per Annexure-B was never considered by respondent No.1. However, he has taken Annexure-B in a casual manner and has returned to CEO of respondent No.2. The details of auction said to have taken place on 13.06.2025 was deliberately denied to the petitioner. Therefore, an application for setting aside the auction sale was filed as per Annexures-C and C1 under Rule 38(5)(a) of the KCS Rules. She has also filed an application seeking to set aside the attachment under Rule 41 of the KCS Rules, which is produced as per Annexure-C2. Inspite of filing such applications, no enquiry was made by respondent No.1, but an order dated 22.07.2025 came to be communicated to the petitioner on 09.08.2025 which are produced as per Annexures-C3 and C4. The petitioner contended that no sale as required under law was held. The documents are suspected to have been concocted by the respondents and therefore, she prays for allowing the petition.

¶130

19 -

¶131

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

Heard Sri Ramachandra G Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate respondent No. 1 and Sri M Chidananda Kedilaya, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶134

Learned counsel for the petitioners basically raised the following points in support of his contention in all the four petitions. Firstly, it is contended that the Trust who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025 had never borrowed any money from respondent No.2. It has also not mortgaged any properties, much less, the properties mentioned in the petition as shown in the sale proclamation. No notice of attachment before judgment was served on the Trust and under such circumstances, the said properties could not have been brought for sale.

¶135

Secondly, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that, the sale should have been held in the same village, where the properties are situated. According to respondent No.1, the sale was held in the office of respondent No.2. There is gross violation of the requirements of law. He

¶136

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶137

20 -

¶138

further submitted that no auction was held as contented by the respondents. There were no bidders and the documents were concocted by the respondents.

¶139

The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the properties that were brought for sale were never valued before issuance of sale proclamation. According to the petitioners, the properties were worth much more than the value that are shown in the sale proclamation. But the respondents valued these properties only at Rs.9,00,00,000/-and fixed the offset price at Rs.6,51,00,000/-. The objections that are filed by the petitioners under Rule 38(5)(a) of KCS Rules were never considered by respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs sought in all four writ petitions. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petitions.

¶140

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the petitions submitted that the petitioner - K P Acharya in Writ Petition No.26325 of 2025 is the Managing Trustee of the Trust who filed the petition in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025. The petitioner in other two writ petitions

¶141

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶142

are none other than the daughter of the petitioner - K P Acharya. Therefore, the father and the daughter have filed these four writ petitions to undo the auction sale that was held legally pursuant to the awards and the sale proclamation. It is contented that none of the petitioners have challenged the awards or the sale proclamations issued in accordance with law. Admittedly, four different awards came to be passed, even then, the petitioners have not paid the amount that is due, nor the awards were challenged. Therefore, execution proceedings were initiated and the sale proclamation for Rs.16,06,46,403/was issued.

¶143

Learned counsel contended that the borrowers have either mortgaged their properties or an order of attachment before judgment was passed in respect of 7 items of properties mentioned in the sale proclamation. The order of attachment before judgment in respect of the properties concerned were never challenged by any of the petitioners. Even though, the sale proclamation was issued against the properties that are mortgaged or attached before judgment, the same are not questioned by the petitioners.

¶144

22 -

¶145

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶146

Learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 38(2)(g) of KCS Rules, the sale of the properties shall be held in the village where the property to be sold is situated or such adjoining prominent place of public resort as may be fixed by the Recovery Officer. The law do not insist that the sale shall be held only in the property that is to be sold. In the present case, the properties were situated in Kapu village and the same were sold in auction in the premises of respondent No.2 - Society which is also situated at Kapu village, which is hardly two furlongs away from the properties in question. Under such circumstances, there is no violation of Rule 38(2)(g) of KCS Rules. Moreover, even though the sale proclamation was issued, the petitioners have not raised any dispute with regard to the same prior to approaching this Court.

¶147

Learned counsel contended that different valuation reports were obtained in respect of 7 items of properties, which are brought for sale. As per the valuation report obtained from the qualified registered valuer, all the 7 properties were valued at Rs.10,28,90,500/-. As per the order dated 11.06.2025, this Court permitted to sell only 5 items of properties on

¶148

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶149

23 -

¶150

13.06.2025. Accordingly, the public auction was held in accordance with law. 5 bidders have participated in the bid. The highest bid is for Rs.6,80,00,000/-. He is declared as highest bidder. Two items of properties consisting of vacant land and college building claimed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025 were not yet sold. Excluding those two properties, the total value of 5 other properties as per the valuation made by the registered valuer is Rs.5,15,91,000/-. The highest bid is for morethan the valuation of the properties. Therefore, it is contended that there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioners.

¶151

Learned counsel contended that the petitioners could only raise objections under Rule 38(4)(a) of the KCS Rules. However, for raising such objections the petitioners are required to deposit the amount that was in arrears as specified in the proclamation of sale together with interest thereon and expenses of attachment and other costs and also a sum equal to 5% of the purchase money to be payable to the purchaser. Unless that condition is fulfilled, the petitioners could not have

¶152

24 -

¶153

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶154

raised any objection for sale of the properties. The petitioners never invoked Rule 38(4)(a) of Rules.

¶155

Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners could not have invoked Rule 38(5)(a) of KCS Rules, unless it is satisfied that there are material irregularities or mistake or fraud either in publishing the sale proclamation or in conducting the sale. The proviso to sub Rule 5(a) makes it clear that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularities or mistake or fraud unless the Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity, mistake of fraud. In the present case, except making bald and baseless allegations, the petitioners have not placed any materials to allege irregularity, mistake or fraud either in issuing sale proclamation or in conducting public auction. Therefore, the Recovery Officer is not liable to consider the objection if any raised under Rule 38(5)(a) of the Rules.

¶156

Learned counsel further submitted that the auction of 5 items of the properties were held on 13.06.2025. The sale was intimated to the petitioners on the very same day and it was served on them on 20.06.2025. The sale confirmation was

¶157

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶158

25 -

¶159

dated 22.07.2025. But the petitioners have never deposited any amount even after lapse of 30 days after the sale. They further contended that all the documents were available with respondent No.1 and the petitioners were party to the proceedings. All necessary documents were served on the petitioners. Under such circumstances, there was no merit in the contention taken by the petitioners regarding non supply of any documents.

¶160

Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice whatsoever is shown by the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The properties were sold after obtaining award and issuing sale proclamation. The properties were valued through the registered valuer and the properties were sold for morethan the value of the properties as per the valuation report.

¶161

Learned counsel further contended that the conduct of the petitioners in approaching this Court is to be taken into consideration. As many as 7 items of properties were attached through the Registrar of Co-operative Societies wayback in 15.07.2017. Such attachments were reflected in RTCs as per

¶162

26 -

¶163

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶164

the order of Revenue Authority dated 02.01.2018. In the proceedings that was initiated by respondent No.2, the award came to be passed on 29.01.2019 by making the attachment before judgment absolute, in respect of all the 7 properties. It is thereafter, the first sale proclamation was issued on 31.12.2020. Accordingly, all the 7 properties were sold in the public auction on 31.12.2020 for Rs.17,01,00,000/-. But the bidder has not paid any amount. Such failure on the part of the bidder was at the instance of the petitioner K P Acharya. Therefore, a fresh sale proclamation came to be issued in respect of all the 7 properties on 04.08.2021. But inspite of that there was no bidders on the date fixed for sale. Again the sale proclamation was issued on 23.05.2025 and the sale was fixed on 13.06.2025. It is at this juncture, the petitioners have approached this Court and managed to get the stay in respect of two items of the properties. The other 5 properties were already sold for Rs.6,80,00,000/-.

¶165

Learned counsel contended that during this period

¶166

from 2017 till June 2025, the petitioners have addressed several letters undertaking to pay the amount that is due or the

¶167

27 -

¶168

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶169

award amount and requesting not to bring the properties for sale. Even the Trust who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025 had addressed the letter in its own letterhead to respondent No.3, requesting not to proceed against the properties and undertaking to pay the award amount. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are estopped from contending that the properties were belonging to the Trust and not to the borrower or that the loan was obtained by the borrower K P Acharya in his individual capacity and not for the Trust etc., In fact, the amount was borrowed by K P Acharya for running the school that was run by the Trust itself. K P Acharya is admittedly the Managing Trustee of the Trust and borrowed the amount along with his wife on the properties belonging to the Trust. The borrower K P Acharya and his daughter Swetha Acharya have either mortgaged the properties or a charge was created by attachment before judgment. When none of these proceedings were challenged by the petitioners, they cannot now maintain any of these petitions.

¶170

Learned counsel contended that in Writ Petition No.16658 of 2025, the petitioner had made it very clear in the

¶171

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶172

petition that she has approached the KAT challenging the award passed against her by raising a dispute in 310/2017-18 to 313/17-18 and by preferring an appeal in Appeal Nos.194 of 2020 to 198 of 2020. Admittedly, these appeals came to be dismissed as she failed to deposit 50% of the award amount and the said order has reach finality. Therefore, as on date all the proceedings that were held before respondent No.1 remain unchallenged.

¶173

Learned counsel also contended that none of these writ petitions are maintainable in view of section 101(2)(a) of KCS Act, which provides for questioning various orders referred therein before the Registrar. The Registrar is authorized to consider the order passed by respondent No.1 and may even release the property from attachment. He refers to Rule 101 (iv) to contend that if the Registrar passes an order the same is to be challenged before the Civil Court within a period of one year from the date of such order from instituting a suit. Without invoking any of these provisions, the petitioners have approached this Court ignoring the specific statutory provisions

¶174

29 -

¶175

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶176

under the special enactment. Therefore, the petitions are not maintainable. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petitions.

¶177

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supporting the arguments addressed by learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that the petitions may be dismissed.

¶178

The materials on record disclose that the petitioner K P Acharya availed loan of Rs.50,00,000/- by mortgaging 22 cents in Sy.No.39/10 situated at Mallar village. Similarly, his wife Sarojini P Acharya availed loan of Rs.50,00,000/- by mortgaging 20 cents in Sy.No.39/4B7 and 31.43 cents in Sy.No.40/3B1 situated at Mallar village. Somnath Shetty availed loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. Similarly, Shwetha D Acharya, the daughter of K P Acharya and Sarojini P Acharya had also availed loan of Rs.50,00,000/- by mortgaging from the Society. Sarojini P Acharya and K P Acharya stood as guarantors for Shwetha D Acharya. It is stated that Sarojini P Acharya and Somnath Shetty stood as guarantors to the loan availed by K P Acharya. K P Acharya and Somnath Shetty stood as sureties to the loan obtained by Sarojini P Acharya and K P Acharya and

¶179

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶180

30 -

¶181

his wife Sarojini P Acharya stood as guarantors to the loan that was obtained by Somanth Shetty. There is no dispute that these borrowers became defaulters. A dispute was raised before the ARCS who passed an order attaching 22 cents in Sy.No.39/10, 12.60 cents in Sy.No.40/3B1, 50 cents in Sy.No.39/3B5, 23 cents in Sy.No.40/3B7 and 40 cents in Sy.No.182/3BP24, 25 cents in Sy.No.40/3B3, 31.43 cents in Sy.No.40/3B1 and 20 cents in Sy.No.39/3B7 before award vide order dated 18.12.2017. None of these orders were challenged by any of the borrowers or the guarantors.

¶182

The ARCS passed the awards in Case No.312/17-18 against Somnath Shetty and others for a sum of Rs.49,76,571/- with interest and attachment before judgment was confirmed; an award came to be passed in Case No.313/17-18 against Shwetha D Acharya for a sum of Rs.78,56,626/and attachment before judgment was confirmed; an award came to be passed in Case No.314/17-18 against K P Acharya and the guarantors for a sum of Rs.41,97,758/- along with interest and the attachment before judgment was confirmed; similarly, an award was passed

¶183

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶184

against Sarojini P Acharya in Case No.315/17-18 for a sum of Rs.60,60,580/- along with interest and the attachment before judgment was confirmed. All these awards came to be passed on 29.01.2019. None of these awards were challenged by any of the borrowers or guarantors.

¶185

It is the contention of the Society that inspite of passing the awards, the borrowers have not paid the award amount. Therefore, the awards were put to execution in CEP No.19, 20, 21 and 22/2020-21. It is stated that all the 7 items of properties were mortgaged and the order attachment before judgment was confirmed, the sale proclamation came to be issued. It is stated that these 7 items of the properties were once sold in public auction that was held on 31.12.2020 for total consideration of morethan of Rs.17 crores in favour of one Harish Shetty. However, he failed to deposit the initial deposit of 15%. Therefore, once again sale proclamations came to be issued. There were no bidders to purchase any of these properties and again fresh sale proclamation came to be issued for auctioning these 7 items of the properties. The auction sale was scheduled to be held on 13.06.2025. It is at this

¶186

32 -

¶187

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶188

stage K P Acharya and Shwetha D Acharya have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions.

¶189

In Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025, K P Acharya by representing the Anantharaja Charitable Trust contended that the Trust was never the borrower nor it has mortgaged the properties and therefore sought for quashing the sale proclamation issued as per Annexure-C. Shwetha D Acharya filed Writ Petition Nos.16658 of 2025 and 26326 of 2025 contending that she was not the member of the Society or borrowed any amount by mortgaging any property and hence, sought for quashing the sale proclamation.

¶190

It is pertinent to note that it is the specific contention of the contesting respondent that K P Acharya being the Managing Trustee of the Trust availed loan for construction and maintenance of the school and hostel buildings, which was run by the Trust. This fact is never disputed by the petitioners. My attention was drawn by respondent No.2 to many of the representations submitted by K P Acharya in his capacity as Managing Trustee of the Trust. Few of such representations were submitted in the letterhead of the Trust admitting the

¶191

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶192

liability and undertaking to pay the amount in a time bound manner.

¶193

Even the Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025 was filed by K P Acharya himself as the Managing Trustee of the Trust. Admittedly, K P Acharya was a party to the dispute that was decided by the ARCS. He was a party to the order attaching the property before award and for the award that was passed. There is absolutely no explanation as to why either the order of attachment before judgment or the award were never challenged either by the individual borrowers or by K P Acharya as Managing Trustee of the Trust. When K P Acharya as the Managing Trustee of the Trust files the writ petition to safeguard the interest of the Trust, absolutely there is no reason as to why he kept quite as the property of the Trust was either attached or award came to be passed by making the order of attachment absolute.

¶194

Interestingly, the Trust consists of K P Acharya as Managing Trustee, his wife Sarojini P Acharya and daughter Shwetha D Acharya are the other two trustees. It is stated that there are two more trustees who never came into picture nor

¶195

34 -

¶196

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶197

they have approached this Court seeking to quash the sale proclamation issued against the property belonging to the Trust. Learned counsel for the petitioners never disputed the contention taken by respondent No.2 that the loan that was borrowed by K P Acharya was in his capacity as the trustee of the Trust and also in his individual capacity and further, the amount was borrowed for construction and maintenance of school and hostel buildings run by the Trust.

¶198

Admittedly, K P Acharya borrowed the amount for the benefit of schools and hospital run by the Trust and the property that belonged to the Trust was attached before award, subsequently the award came to be passed making the attachment absolute. The Trust never raised its voice by challenging the same. When K P Acharya was very much aware of these developments, if at all there was any bonafides in the contention now raised in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025, those orders could have been challenged much earlier. It appears that an attempt is made by the petitioners to postpone auctioning of the properties that are already attached. Therefore, I do not find any bonafides in the contention taken

¶199

35 -

¶200

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶201

by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2025 and hence,

¶202

the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶203

In the other writ petitions filed by K P Acharya in his individual capacity and by Shwetha D Acharya, they never challenged the order of attachment, the award passed by ARCS, making the order of attachment absolute. When the award and attachment orders reached finality, I do not find any reason to quash the sale proclamation. I do not find any merits in the contention taken by any of these petitioners including the contention that Shwetha D Acharya was not a member of the Society and that she has never borrowed any amount. If there was any truth in such contention, the same should have been raised at the first instance before ARCS when the matters were pending before him. I do not find any reason for the inaction on the part of the petitioners for not taking any defence even when the award was passed and not even chosen to challenge the same.

¶204

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have raised objections by filing an application under Rule 38(5)(a) of KCS Rules and the same

¶205

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶206

36 -

¶207

should have been considered by the Registrar. It is also his contention that the auction sale of the properties was not held in accordance with Rule 38(2)(g) of KCS Rules. Rule 38(2)(g) of KCS Rules prescribes the time and place of sale and it provides the sale shall be held in the village where the properties to be sold is situated or such adjoining prominent place of public resort as may be fixed by the Recovery Officer. This Rule does not mandate that the same shall be held in the very same property as tried to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The materials on record disclose that the sale was held in the same village where the property is situated and the place of sale i.e., office of respondent No.2 - Society, situated at Kapu Village, which is said to be two furlongs away from the property, which are the subject matter of the sale.

¶208

As per Rule 38(4)(a) of the Rules, the person owning the property or holding an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale may apply to have the sale set aside by depositing the prescribed amount with the Recovery Officer. The petitioners have not raised any objection under this

¶209

37 -

¶210

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶211

provision as it mandates deposit of the amount. They have also not challenged the sale before KAT as such challenge is to be preceded by deposit of the sale amount. However, the petitioners have filed an application under Rule 38(5)(a) of KCS Rules. This Rule refers to any material irregularities or mistake or fraud in publishing the sale proclamation or conducting the sale. Except contending that the properties are not valued properly, no other irregularities, mistake or fraud is alleged by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to invoke Rule 38(5)(a) of Rules. Rule 41 of KCS Rules deals with investigation of claims of property attached. The Sale Officer is having the authority to any objections or claim made in respect of the property so attached. Admittedly, no such objection was raised by any of the petitioners with the Sale officer at any point of time to investigate their claims.

¶212

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in K Devadas Kumar Vs A Umesh and Others¹ , Smt Varijakshi Bhat Vs State of Karnataka² ,

¶213

1 ILR 2006 KAR 3076

¶214

2 2008 SCC Online KAR 571

¶215

38 -

¶216

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶217

Lalitha Holla Vs State of Karnataka³ , P M Abubakar Vs State of Karnataka and Others⁴ , Vishu Kumar and another Vs The ARCS and Others⁵ and Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others⁶ . All those decisions were rendered under the facts and circumstances of each of the case. The position of law applied or highlighted is not in dispute. But the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, do not justify the application of the same in favour of the petitioners.

¶218

This Court vide order dated 11.06.2025 permitted holding of auction in respect of 5 items of properties i.e., Sy.Nos.39/10, 40/3B1, 39/4B7, 40/3B1 and 40/3B3. It is stated that those items of properties were sold in the public auction for a sum of Rs.6.80 crores. According to respondent No.2, it obtained 3 valuation reports for valuing the properties that are brought for sale. The average of these three valuation reports was Rs.5,15,91,000/-. Therefore, it is the contention of

¶219

3 2008 SCC Online KAR 571

¶220

4 (2017) SCC 302

¶221

5 WP No.42272/2019 DD 17.03.2022

¶222

6 (2001) 8 SCC 509

¶223

39 -

¶224

NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶225

respondent No.2 that the property was sold for much higher rate than the average valuation of the properties.

¶226

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the properties were undervalued as the same were valued morethan Rs.10 crores. The petitioners are relying on the valuation report which was obtained after filing of the writ petitions. It was not issued by a valuer approved by respondent No.2. The petitioners were very much aware of the valuation of these properties when the order of attachment before award was passed, when the award was passed and attachment order was confirmed and also when the execution case came to be filed. There is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners have not raised any such objections well in advance. Interestingly, the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the sale proclamation which was issued for the first time. No such objections were raised even when the parties were not brought for sale for the second time. It may not be a coincidence that for the first time when the sale proclamation

¶227

was issued and even the properties were sold in the public auction, the successful bidder has never deposited the initial

¶228

40 - NC: 2025:KHC:49615 WP No. 16663 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16658 of 2025 WP No. 26325 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶229

amount. When the properties were brought for sale for second time, there were no bidders. When the sale proclamation was issued for the third time, the petitioners rushed to this Court seeking quashing of the sale proclamation. Under such circumstances, I do not find any bonafides in the contention raised by the petitioners.

¶230

In respect of 5 items of the properties belonging to the private petitioners, the sale is already held on 13.06.2025 as scheduled. I do not find illegality either in holding auction or in valuing the properties. I do not find any justification for the petitioners to contend that respondent No.2 is playing fraud or mischief but on the other hand, the conduct of the petitioners gives rise to a reasonable doubt about their credibility. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merits in any of the petitions filed by the petitioners. Hence, the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶231

48. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶232

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶233

PNV/BGN

Anantharaja Charitable Trust v. the Assistant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anantharaja Charitable Trust v. the Assistant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajuktha Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Tarikere Town Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Kulal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramaiah @ Thammaiah Vs Sri. D Nanjappa

Sakamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shekar G Vs the State of Karnataka