Govindaiah N Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO- A) DIRECT BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED E-AUCTION PROCEEDINGS PUBLISHED IN TIMES OF INDIA DAILY DATED 30.08.2024 IN NO.KHB/E-AUCTION CELL/E-AUCTION NOTIFICATION-20/2024-25 DATED 29.08.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Caption petition is filed assailing the impugned E- Auction Notification dated 29.8.2024 which includes the schedule property bearing site No.271 MIG A Sector, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:24887 WP No. 25665 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner,

¶33

learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents-3 and 4.

¶34

3. The petitioner claims title to the petition site on

¶35

the basis of an auction conducted on 18.07.1983. It is the case of the petitioner that he has traced his title through his vendor, Sri Satish Harini, who was declared the successful bidder in the said public auction. Pursuant thereto, the suit site was allotted in favour of the petitioner's vendor, and a Sale Confirmation Certificate was issued on 01.09.1983, as evidenced by Annexure–C.

¶36

The petitioner further contends that possession

¶37

of the suit site was handed over to his vendor, which is evidenced by a memo dated 11.07.1988. The petitioner asserts that he entered into an agreement of sale with his vendor on 02.04.1995 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,10,000/–. It is his further case that he subsequently purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:24887 WP No. 25665 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

23.10.2020, executed by respondent No.1–Housing Board through a General Power of Attorney, which is produced at Annexure–M.

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondent No.1–Housing Board has proceeded to conduct the impugned E-Auction on the ground that the original Sale Confirmation Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's vendor was obtained by fraudulent means. He further submits that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by executing a cancellation deed before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar on 21.03.2023.

¶43

In view of the rival contentions, the limited

¶44

question that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.1–Housing Board could have initiated the impugned E-Auction without first taking steps to challenge or annul the registered sale deed standing in favour of the

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:24887 WP No. 25665 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

petitioner, particularly when the said deed is founded upon

¶49

an earlier allotment made to the petitioner’s vendor.

¶50

This Court, in the case of Manjunath Shetty v. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and Another [AIR 2018 KAR 82] , has categorically held that unilateral cancellation of a registered document is impermissible in law. If a party is aggrieved by such a document on the ground of fraud, the proper course is to seek adjudication before a competent Civil Court. A registered instrument cannot be unilaterally cancelled merely on the plea of fraud without due process of law. The legal principle enunciated by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the present case.

¶51

Further, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramti Devi v. Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 198] also lends support to the petitioner’s case. The ratio laid down therein is directly applicable to the controversy involved in the present petition. The relevant portion of

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:24887 WP No. 25665 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the judgment, having a direct bearing on the issue under consideration, is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶56

“Since the appellant is seeking to have the document avoided or cancelled, necessarily, a declaration has to be given by the court in that behalf. Until the document is avoided or cancelled by proper declaration, the duly registered document remains valid and binds the parties. So the suit necessarily has to be laid within three years from the date when the cause of action had occurred. Since the cause of action had arisen on 29-1-1947, the date on which the sale deed was executed and registered and the suit was filed on 30-7-1966, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The courts below, therefore, were right in dismissing the suit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.”

¶57

In light of the principles laid down in the judgments

¶58

referred to above, particularly Manjunath

¶59

Shetty and Ramti Devi , it is evident that once a registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner

¶60

based on a prior allotment and confirmed sale, the title to the property has effectively passed, and the respondentHousing Board has divested itself of any right, title, or interest over the suit site. Having lost title, the

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:24887 WP No. 25665 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

respondent-Authority could not have proceeded to unilaterally cancel the registered deed or treat the land as its own. Consequently, the initiation of the impugned E- Auction, in the absence of any lawful cancellation of the petitioner’s title through due process before a competent Civil Court, is without jurisdiction, lacks legal authority, and is therefore liable to be quashed.

¶65