A B Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.05.2019 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R2 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CHANGE THE KHATHA AND PAHANI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING OF 6 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE TOTAL EXTENT OF 48.31 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.64/1 OF HUYILDORE VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK.

¶33

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

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:30240 WP No. 5721 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A issued by the respondent No.2 – Tahasildar, Sira Taluk, declining to mutate and enter the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deed executed through a court of law.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not disputed that the one Junjaiah was granted 6 acres of land in Survey No.64/1 of Huyil Dore Village, Bukkapatna Hobli, Sira Taluk. The said Junjaiah sold the lands in favour of one Ugrappa under registered Sale Deed dated 16.10.1974. Sri Ugrappa sold the same in favour of Sri Joganna on 14.12.1978. It is also not denied that the name of Sri Joganna was entered in the land records. Pursuant to the death of Sri Joganna, the names of the legal representatives of Sri Joganna was also entered in

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30240 WP No. 5721 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the land records in terms of mutation order bearing MR No.H8/2011 12 dated 15.12.2011.

¶44

The original petitioner Sri A.B. Manjunatha

¶45

entered into an agreement of sale with the members of the family of Sri Jogana on 17.01.2015. When the owners failed to fulfil the terms of the agreement, Sri A.B.Manjunatha filed O.S.No.84 of 2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sira, seeking specific performance of the contract. A compromise decree

¶46

was entered into on 09.09.2017 and the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of Sri A.B.Manjunatha. However, when the defendants failed to

¶47

execute the sale deed, Sri A.B.Manjunatha filed an execution petition and through Court directions, the Commissioner appointed by the Court executed the sale deed in favour of Sri A.B.Manjunatha on 04.09.2018 and the same was registered before the jurisdictional Subregister. Following the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner gave a representation on 29.01.2019 seeking

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30240 WP No. 5721 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

change of katha and entry of his name in the land records.

¶51

The Tahasildar has issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A declining to enter the name of the petitioners in the land records on the ground that they have not produced the 11E sketch and that the purchasers did not obtain prior permission at the hands of the Government.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of these proceedings Sri A.B.Manjunatha passed away and the legal representatives have been brought on record. Learned counsel submits that it is beyond the powers of the Tahasildar who have issued such

¶53

an endorsement declining to register the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the registered sale deeds.

¶54

There is sufficient substance in the submission

¶55

of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tahasildar could not have declined to enter the name of the petitioners on the strength of a registered sale deed. If

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30240 WP No. 5721 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

the Tahasildar is of the opinion that initial sale made on

¶59

16.10.1974 at the hands of Sri Junjaiah was in contravention of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978, then the only legal recourse that was open for the Tahasildar was to initiate proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Unless and until the competent authority set aside the sale as void, the Tahasildar could not have declined to enter the names of the petitioners in the land records. Since it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extent of land granted in favour of Sri Junjaiah was 6 acres and the subsequent sales including the sale deed in favour of Sri A.B.Manjunatha was in respect of 6 acres only, there was no need for Tahasildar to seek 11E sketch.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in her submission that since 6 acres of land were transferred by Sri Junjaiah in favour of Sri Ugrappa and the same is now transferred in favour of the petitioners under registered Sale Deed dated 04.09.2018, there is no need for the petitioners to produce 11E sketch.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30240 WP No. 5721 of 2021

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The

¶64

impugned endorsement at Annexure-A is set aside. The Tahasildar shall proceed to mutate the names of the petitioners in the land records pursuant to the sale dated 04.09.2018 and the affidavit that would be filed by the petitioners seeking joint entry of their names on the ground that they are the legal heirs of Late Sri A.B.Manjunatha. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶65

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶66

KLY CT: JL

A B Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A B Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siraj Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

B Y Vishesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Zeenath Begum @ Zeenath Unnisa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Hosuraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ajay M C., Vs the Deputy Commissioner Office

Sri C M Byyanna Vs State of Karnataka