Smt Shaheena Begam Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TUMKUR TALUK/DISTRICT VIDE CASE NO.KANI.A/THA.PU.TU/NYA/VI.VA/17/2020-21 DATED 03.08.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1661 WP No. 28550 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

BEARING KHANESHUMARI KHATHA NO.13, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1 AND 15/2, MEASURING EAST TO WEST. 200 FT AND NORTH TO SOUTH 50 FT. TOTALLY MEASURING 10,000 SQ. FT, SITUATED AT KOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND ETC.,

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs.

¶35

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any order to quash the impugned order passed by the 2(nd) Respondent, Executive Officer, Tumkur Taluk/District vide case No. �ಾ�ಅ / �ಾಪಂತು / �ಾ� / �ವ /17/2020-21 (Ka.Ni.A/Tha.Pu.Tu/Nya/Vi.Va/17/2020-21 dated 03.08.2022 vide Annexure-H in respect of the property bearing Khaneshumari Khatha No.13, 14/1 14/2 15/1 and 15/2 measuring East to West: 200 ft and North to South 50 ft, totally measuring 10,000 Sq.ft, situated at Kottanahalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk.

¶36

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3 ^ (rd) Respondent to make Khatha in favour of Petitioner on the basis of Pouthi Varas in respect of Khaneshumari Khatha No.13, 14/1 14/2 15/1 and 15/2 measuring East to West: 200 ft and North to South 50 ft, totally measuring 10,000 Sq.ft, situated at Kottanahalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk.

¶37

(c) To Pass any order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:1661 WP No. 28550 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The property bearing Khaneshwari Khata No.13, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1 and 15/2 situated at Kottanalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, measuring East to West 200 feet and North to South 50 feet was owned by Mr. Shafi Ulla Khan Makki. The husband of the petitioner having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.1977. The husband of the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale to sell the same to the father of respondent No.4 to 7 on 26.10.1994. Subsequent thereto, the name of the father of respondent Nos.5 to 7 was entered into the revenue records. The husband of the petitioner having expired on 23.04.2006, the petitioner applied for a gramtana sketch of the property and it is then that the petitioner came to know of the entry of the name of the father of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the revenue records and she had challenged the same on the ground that there is no sale deed which has been executed in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 to 7 by filing necessary proceedings under Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and sought for cancellation of the entry made in the name of the father

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1661 WP No. 28550 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

of respondent Nos.4 to 7. The said application came to be rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that there is an agreement of sale which has been entered into between the husband of the petitioner and the father of respondent Nos.4 to 7 and therefore, the entry which has been made in the persons of the agreement of sale is proper and correct.

¶45

On enquiry with the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether any sale deed has been executed and/or if a suit for specific performance is pending, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits that there is no sale deed which has been executed either in favour of the father of respondent Nos.4 to 7 or in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 7 and no suit has been filed by either of them seeking for specific performance.

¶46

If that be so, the right of the father of respondent Nos.4 to 7 and subsequently, respondent Nos.4 to 7 continues to be inchoate inasmuch as a mere agreement of sale cannot convey the title to the property. Though possession may be handed over under the agreement of

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:1661 WP No. 28550 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

sale, the handover of such possession would not entitle the father of respondent Nos.4 to 7 or respondent Nos.4 to 7 to get their names entered in the revenue records. At the most, it can only protect their possessory rights, which is subject to any proceedings to be initiated by the owner of the land, until then the possession cannot be disturbed.

¶51

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the entry which has been made by respondent No.2 of the name of the father of respondent Nos.4 to 7 cannot be sustained. As such, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶54

ii) A Certiorari is issued. The impugned order dated 03.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2 at AnnexureH is quashed.

¶55

iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to cause the re-entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the property bearing Khaneshwari Khata No.13, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1 and 15/2 situated at

¶56