Sri. L Shivarudraiah Vs Karnataka Lokayukta

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2019 IN NO.COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-611/2019/ARLO-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONDUCT APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.02.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10813-DB WP No. 50253 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the learned Lokayukta in No.COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-611/2019/ARLO-1.

¶34

The petitioner had made a complaint to the Lokayukta against the then Sub-Registrar, Smt. Prabha, posted at Sriramapura Sub-Registrar Office, Magadi Main Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru.

¶35

In sum and substance, the allegations in the complaint are that, one A. Nagarajaiah, s/o Ankaya and his family members (wife and children) had executed an agreement of sale dated 23.02.2017, agreeing to sell the house property bearing Khata No.30, PID No.71-W0033-1, property No.12 Sanjeevani Nagar, Hegganahalli Village, Ward No.71, BBMP, Bengaluru, measuring 40x30 feet to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.49,00,000/-, which would include Rs.25,00,000/housing loan due on the said property, which was agreed

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10813-DB WP No. 50253 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

to be repaid by the complainant. The complainant had paid Rs.20,00,000/as earnest money. The said agreement of sale dated 23.02.2017 was registered before Peenya Sub-Registrar Office. Cancellation deed dated 02.05.2018 allegedly got executed and registered by A. Nagarajaiah and his family members in respect of the said property canceling the previous agreement with the petitioner dated 23.02.2017.

¶39

It is alleged that the Sub-Registrar, Smt. Prabha, without verifying and satisfying herself about the identity of the parties to the deed, for extraneous considerations, registered the cancellation deed on 02.05.2018.

¶40

On receiving the said complaint, the Upalokayukta called for the comments from Smt. Prabha, the then SubRegistrar. The Sub-Registrar had denied the allegations made in the complaint as baseless. She stated that the cancellation of sale agreement dated 02.05.2018 was registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Sriramapuram. The document had been prepared by a licensed deed writer, Sri Bettegowda H.D. The deed writer had

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10813-DB WP No. 50253 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

prepared the cancellation deed as required under Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Registration (Deed Writers License) Rules, 1979, by investigating the title of the parties. The said document was presented for registration after following the required procedure. The document was not pertaining to the transfer of property.

¶44

On 02.05.2018, Smt. Padma and others, with the signatures of the parties, had presented the document for registration. The complainant was shown as a second party in the document and his signature was found on the document. The parties to the document furnished their photographs, thumb impression and signature and admitted regarding the execution as per the provisions of the Registration Act and the recitals in the document. As per the procedure of registration of document, two witnesses identified the parties to the document. Registration fee and stamp duty were paid as per the law and therefore, she had registered the deed of cancellation dated 02.05.2018 in accordance with the Rules.

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10813-DB WP No. 50253 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Learned Upalokayukta considered the provisions of Rules 198 and 201 of the Karnataka Registration Rules as well as Section 82 of the Registration Act. According to the aforesaid provisions, a complaint regarding impersonation can be made to the Registering Officer and upon satisfying the truth in the complaint, the Registering Officer can institute a prosecution by obtaining the approval of the Inspector General of Registration. The complainant did not make any complaint before the Registering Authority regarding impersonation.

¶48

As the petitioner did not make any complaint regarding impersonation before the Registering Authority as provided under Section 82 of the Registration Act and Rules 198 and 201 of the Karnataka Registration Act, learned Upalokayukta has opined that, if at all there was some substance in the allegation of impersonation, the necessary steps should have been taken by the complainant.

¶49

It may also be noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps for cancellation of deed by instituting any civil

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10813-DB WP No. 50253 of 2019

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

proceedings. In view thereof, the Upalokayukta has dismissed the complaint.

¶53

Mr. Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – Lokayukta vehemently argued in support of the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶54

We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Upalokayukta. The facts reveal that the petitioner neither made any complaint to the Sub-Registrar regarding impersonation nor did he take any step for challenging the deed of cancellation in any civil proceedings. The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence that the deed was executed by impersonating Mr. A. Nagarajaiah and his family members.

¶55

We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Upalokayukta. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the deed of cancellation, he may take appropriate steps, as may be available under

¶56