Veeresh v. Kamalamma

- 1e-NC:(2026:KHC:34491( WP(No.(2326(of(2019( ,HC-KAR( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA THDATEDATHISATHEA6 ADAYAOFAJULYA2026A BEFOREA THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA WRITAPETITIONANO.A2326AOFA2019A(LB-RES)A BETWEEN:A VEERESH-SON-OF-AMARAPPA-AGED-ABOUT-41-YEARS-NO.1054,-7TH-MAIN,-3RD-BLOCK-KORAMANGALA-BANGALORE-560-034.- …PETITIONER- (BY-SRI.-NITHIN-PRASAD,-ADVOCATE)- AND:A

¶1KAMALAMMA D/O-CHINNAPPA-REDDY WIFE-OF-CHOWDA-REDDY Digitally AGED-ABOUT-77-YEARS signedtiby RESIDING-AT: VANAMALA CHIKKA-MASJID-ROADN SARJAPUR,-ANEKAL-TALUKLocation: HIGH BANGALORE-DISTRICT---562-125. COURT0OF KARNATAKA

¶2PANCHYAT-DEVELOPMENT-OFFICER AND-SECRETARY YAMARE-GRAMA-PANCHAYAT SARJAPUR-HOBLI ANEKAL-TALUK BANGALORE-DISTRICT---562-125.

¶3MAHABALESHWARA SON-OF-LATE-SIDDARAMAIAH e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:34491( WP(No.(2326(of(2019( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( MAJOR-ITTINA-PROPERTIES-PRIVATE-LIMITED-NO.1054,-7TH-MAIN,-3RD-BLOCK-KORAMANGALA-BANGALORE-560-034--

4.-CHIEF-EXECUTIVE-OFFICER--APPELLATE-AUTHORITY-ANEKAL-TALUK-PANCHAYAT-OFFICE-ATTIBELE-ANEKAL-ROAD-ANEKAL--562-107.--…RESPONDENTS---(BY-SRI.-K.-SRINIVASA,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R-1;-------SRI.-PRAKASH,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R-2-&-R-4;-------VIDE-ORDER-DATED-18.01.2019-NOTICE-TO-R-3-IS--------DISPENSED-WITH)----THIS-W.P.-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLE-226-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-(I)-ISSUE-A-WRIT-OF-CERTIORARI-OR-ANY-OTHER-WRIT-IN-THE-NATURE-OF-CERTIORARI-OR-ANY-OTHER-WRIT,-ORDER-OR-DIRECTION-QUASHING-THE-IMPUGNED-ORDER-DATED-

20.06.2013-PASSED-BY-RESPONDENT-NO.4-IN-PROCEEDINGS-NO.- VPC- :- APPEAL:14:2008-09- (ANNEXURE-R)- - THIS-PETITION,-COMING-ON-FOR-ORDERS,-THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:- - CORAM:- HON'BLE-MR.-JUSTICE-B-M-SHYAM-PRASAD-A A

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner asserts ownership of a certain extent of lands in Sy. Nos.30/1 and 31/1 of Sompura Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk and Sy.No.7/1 of Chikkadunnasandra Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk [the subject lands] under three sale deeds that are dated 13.01.2004. The petitioner's grievance is with the fourth respondent's order dated 20.06.2013 [Annexure-R]. The fourth respondent, by the impugned order dated 20.06.2013, has cancelled the revenue entries for the subject lands in favour of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayathraj Act, 1993 on the ground that the revenue entries are despite pending proceedings in R.A.No.9/2002 as against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 238/88 and F.D.P. No.1/2002.

Mr. Nithin Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's vendor

[Ms. Kamalamma] had executed the sale deeds in anticipation of the final decree in the suit for partition instituted by her in O.S.No.238/1988 which was pending in the final decree proceedings in FDP.No.1/2002 and that the civil Court has finally drawn the final decree in terms of the Commissioner's report with the Court Commissioner demarcating the portion sold by her in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that thereafter, Ms. Kamalamma had filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2/2011, but in terms of a copy of the order now placed on record, the suit is dismissed as not pressed but observing that she did not disclose the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner.

This Court must examine whether there must be interference with the fourth respondent's order in the light of these circumstances and the petitioner's specific case that he was not issued with any notice prior to the impugned order. This Court must opine that the petitioner's rights in the subject lands is accrued with the Sale deeds dated 13.01.2004 during the pendency of the final decree proceedings, and that any defect in such transfer stands cured with the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel as contemplated under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This Court also opines that this gets reiterated with the first respondent withdrawing the suit in O.S.No.2/2011. These circumstances justify interference with the fourth respondent's order. Hence the following. ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the fourth respondent's order dated 20.06.2013 [Annexure - R]. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB