Anant Kumar Sakre Vs the State of Karnataka

(BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) SRI. DHANANJAYA JOSHI ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEERSHEETY B. K. ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXURE-G NAMELY, THE OBJECTION DATED 17.07.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT No.2 AND ANNEXURE-J NAMELY THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

¶26

Heard Sri.D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the writ

¶27

petitioner, Sri.Sheshadri Jaishankar, learned Additional Government Advocate who represents respondent No.1

¶28

and Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, who represents respondent No.2 and appear before this Court physically. Also heard

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2157 WP No. 200539 of 2025

¶30

Sri.Dhananjaya Joshi who represents Sri.Veershetty B.K., learned counsel on record for respondent No.3 and appears through video conference.

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the objections filed by the petitioner dated 17.07.2023 and representation dated 11.07.2024 and also to direct respondent No.2 not to pass any orders changing the nature of land in Sy.No.77Aa of Malgatti village, Aurad (B) Circle, Kalaburagi Taluk and District admeasuring 17 acres 39 guntas.

¶32

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits

¶33

that a suit was filed for partition and separate possession against the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein by the sisters of petitioner regarding the subject property. The petitioner borrowed loan from Canara Bank and mortgaged the subject property. The petitioner failed to repay the amount due to the Bank and the property was put to auction. Respondent No.3 was declared as highest

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2157 WP No. 200539 of 2025

¶35

bidder. On respondent No.3 paying the entire sale consideration, the Bank issued sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.201415/2021 challenging the auction held and the same was allowed and sale deed that was issued in favour of respondent No.3 was cancelled. Respondent No.3 and the Bank preferred two separate writ appeals. Those two writ appeals were allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner approached Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. However, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order that was rendered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 , before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The same is pending. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 filed an

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2157 WP No. 200539 of 2025

¶37

application before respondent No.2 to grant change of land use.

¶38

Learned counsel states that a civil suit

¶39

regarding the subject property is pending and likewise the appeal is pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. However, respondent No.3 gave a declaration that no litigation is pending regarding the subject property. On coming to know about the misrepresentation of respondent No.3, petitioner filed an application before respondent No.2 seeking respondent No.2 not to entertain the application that is filed by respondent No.3 and not to issue any change of land use certificate. Also the petitioner filed another application not to entertain the application that is filed by respondent No.3. However, respondent No.2 did not entertain those two applications and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶40

Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 states that matter will be

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2157 WP No. 200539 of 2025

¶42

looked into meticulously by respondent No.2 and

¶43

appropriate orders will be passed.

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that the petitioner is taking irrelevant stand only to harass respondent No.3 and indeed nothing remains for consideration in the case and the petitioner could not establish his case before any forum.

¶45

The application at Annexure-E reveals that respondent No.3 herein applied for change of land use on 06.07.2023. Objections were filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-G on 17.07.2023 and a representation in that regard was given on 11.07.2024. As per the submission that is made by Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, the application that is filed by respondent No.3 is still pending before respondent No.2. The application under Annexure-E was filed seeking necessary endorsement regarding change of land use. The version of the petitioner is that such change should not be made as the litigation in respect of subject property is pending before a civil Court and also Debt

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2157 WP No. 200539 of 2025

¶47

Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. In the light of these facts, this Court is of the view that a direction is required to be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the application under Annexure-E only after giving due consideration to the objections raised by the petitioner through the letters dated 17.07.2023 and 11.07.2024, hear both the parties i.e., the petitioner and respondent No.3 and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders.

¶48

Thus, writ petition is disposed of with the

¶49

following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Respondent No.2, Commissioner, Kalaburagi

¶52

Urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi, is directed to conduct an enquiry before passing any orders on the application that is submitted by respondent No.3 regarding change of land use in respect of subject property, consider the objections raised through letters dated 17.07.2023 and 11.07.2024 by the petitioner

¶53