Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1207 (KAR)

Udaya Kumar v. State of Karnataka

2013-10-23

V.SURI APPA RAO

body2013
ORDER 1. These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned endorsement bearing No. 154/1112 dated 24.09.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-F and to direct the 2nd respondent to register the absolute sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner and hand over the original sale deed to the 1st petitioner. 2. The 2nd respondent – Society purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.166 situated at Gokare Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District from one Smt. Sangitha Jain w/o Sri. Suresh Jain, who is the absolute owner of the converted land vide conversion order dated 11.02.2009 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District. Smt. Sangitha Jain had acquired the said land from her vendor vide registered sale deed dated 30.06.1999 executed by one Sri. Y.C. Annayappa, registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Bangalore Rural District vide document No. DNH10070520042005, Book I, stored in CD No. DNHD 13 dated 22.06.2004. The 2nd petitioner – Housing Society purchased the same by paying valuable consideration of Rs. 60.00 lakhs. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner – Society invested lakhs of rupees of the members’ hard earned money. Thereafter, submitted a layout plan to Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority after paying the requisite fee. The Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (for short ‘BIAAP’) has approved the layout plan on 26.02.2010 and accorded the permission to form the residential layout. The BIAAP Authority has also issued commencement certificate in favour of the 2nd petitioner – Society vide Annexure ‘C’. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner– Society executed the relinquishment deed relinquishing the park and civic amenity area to the concerned local authority, thereby the BIAAP Authority has released the sites as required in favour of the 2nd petitioner – Society. The 2nd petitioner – Society thereafter formed the layout as per the approved layout plan and formed the full fledged layout and completed the layout in its entirety. The 2nd petitioner – Society has executed registered sale deeds in favour of its members in the Office of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd petitioner – Society thereafter formed the layout as per the approved layout plan and formed the full fledged layout and completed the layout in its entirety. The 2nd petitioner – Society has executed registered sale deeds in favour of its members in the Office of the 2nd Respondent. The 1st petitioner who being the member of 2nd petitioner – Society was allotted a site bearing No. 32 situated in the layout formed by the 2nd petitioner – Society tendered a registered sale deed on 16.09.2011 in respect of the site bearing No.32 before the 1st respondent for registration in favour of the petitioner. The petitioners have submitted necessary sale deeds and other relevant documents and requisite stamp duty and registration fee for the purpose of registration. The 2nd respondent having admitted the document for registration has issued an endorsement bearing No. 154/1112 dated 24.09.2011 refusing to register the document for registration stating that the subject matter of the site involved in the registered sale deed is the part and parcel of Sy.No.166 in respect of which an injunction order is operating in A.A. No. 28 of 2010. Aggrieved by the said endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 3. The respondents have not filed statement of objections. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not the parties to the A.A. No. 28 of 2010, in which the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore has passed injunction order restraining the respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner by way of injunction till the Arbitrator is appointed and Arbitral proceedings are concluded and award is passed. Therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to register the documents produced by the petitioners. 5. As seen from the documents filed by the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner – Society purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 166 situated at Gokare Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Annexure ‘B’ indicates that the Society applied for layout plan to Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority, which was approved by the Planning Authority and issued commencement certificate in favour of the 2nd petitioner – Society vide Annexure-C. 6. Annexure ‘B’ indicates that the Society applied for layout plan to Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority, which was approved by the Planning Authority and issued commencement certificate in favour of the 2nd petitioner – Society vide Annexure-C. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner – Society acquired some other properties adjacent to the property situated in Sy.No.166. About 3,000 members have joined in the Society as members. In this layout about 600 members have been allotted sites. Out of which 450 sale deeds were already executed by the 2nd petitioner – Society to its members. When the 2nd petitioner – Society submitted documents in respect of the site No.32 the 2nd respondent issued the impugned endorsement refusing to register the document on the ground that the subject matter of the site involved in the registered sale deed is the part and parcel of Sy.No.166 in respect of stay order is operating in A.A. No. 28 of 2010. 7. As seen from the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District one Sri. Muninanjappa filed application before the Court under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the respondent – Sangeetha Jain – vendor of the 2nd petitioner seeking an order of injunction against the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner and alienating the suit schedule property in any manner pending adjudication of the dispute by the Arbitrator. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the said Muninanjappa and restrained Sangeetha Jain from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property i.e. 2 acres of land in Sy.No.166 purchased by the 2nd petitioner – Society on 30.05.2009 itself. Whereas the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order on 31.03.2011 long after the execution of the sale deed by Sangeetha Jain in favour of the 2nd petitioner – Society. 8. Surprisingly, in view of A.A. No. 28 of 2010 Sri. Muninanjappa still claiming possession of the suit schedule property when the 2nd petitioner – Society purchased the same from the registered owner Smt. Sangeetha Jain in the year 2009 and formed layout and sold ¾ flats already to its members. The sale deed executed by Smt. Sangeetha Jain much before the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of the 2nd petitioner – Society in the year 2009. The sale deed executed by Smt. Sangeetha Jain much before the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of the 2nd petitioner – Society in the year 2009. Therefore, the question of restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property does not arise when the respondent in A.A. No.28/2010 already alienated the property to the 2nd petitioner – Society. 9. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to register the sale deed produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the endorsement – Annexure F issued by the 2nd Respondent – Sub-Registrar is hereby quashed and he is directed to register the document within one month from the date of this order. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.