Sri Jampala Ravindra Babu v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21734 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN:

SRI. JAMPALA RAVINDRA BABU SON OF LATE J. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.406, 4TH 'A' CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YADUPATHI G, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶2INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶3THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT, NO.623/622, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 11TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 011.

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4THE SUB-REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR (BOMMANAHALLI) BOMMANAHALLI SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, BANGALORE - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANT NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEMORANDUM (JNAPANA) DATED 01.06.2026 BEARING NO. JINOJA/IND/15/2026-27 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; "(a) Quash the Memorandum (Jnapana) dated

01.06.2026 bearing No. JINOJA/IND/15/2026-27 issued by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-A).

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to rectify the clerical mistakes in the Index Register pertaining Sale Deed dated

09.11.1984 registered as Document No.4922/1984-85 Book I Volume No.2233 at pages 1 to 6 before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, by correctly showing the Vendors therein as represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri

N.Krishnappa, and the Purchaser therein as Sri Jampala Ravindra Babu (Annexure-B and D).

(c) Consequently, direct the Respondent No.4 to issue fresh Encumbrance Certificate by incorporating the corrected entries in the Index Register in respect of Sale Deed dated 09.11.1984 registered as Document No.4922/1984-85 Book I Volume No.2233 at pages 1 to 6 before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk [Annexure-E and F)

(d) Grant the costs of these proceedings; and

(e) Pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶2The petitioner has had purchased the land in Survey Nos.34/2 measuring 30 guntas, 34/9 measuring 11½ guntas situated at Geddalahalli VIllage, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk under a sale deed daed 14.02.1995. Originally, the land in Sy.No.34 measuring 1 acre 16½ guntas was owned by N.Krishnappa, N.Ramu, N.Venkatesh, Lakshmamma, N.Ramachandra, Yashodamma and Munithayamma. The petitioner purchased an extent of 1 acre 16½ guntas from them under a sale deed

dated 09.11.1984. Thereafter, he sold a portion of the property measuring 15 guntas to one Smt.Janaki Kumari on 14.02.1995. Subsequently, Sy.No.34 was phodied into various sub numbers and the property retained by the petitioner was converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes.

¶3For the purpose of development, when the petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate, he noticed certain clerical errors in the encumbrance certificate provided with reference to the index register maintained by the respondents. Though the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was mentioned in the encumbrance certificate, the name of the purchaser was shown as Krishnappa instead of the petitioner. Krishnappa being the Power of Attorney who had sold the property on behalf of the land owners. In that behalf, the petitioner had submitted representation to the Sub Registrar to carry out necessary correction.

¶4The Sub Registrar had written to the District Registrar seeking permission. However, the District Registrar by way of endorsement at Annexure-A rejected the said request on the ground that there is no complaint filed before the District Registrar under Sub Section (2) of Section 68 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'). Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶5Section 68 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; "68. Power of Registrar to superintend and control Sub-Registrars.—(1) Every Sub-Registrar shall perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate.

(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered."

¶6In terms of Section 68 of the Act, the District Registrar would be the concerned authority who on a complaint can consider the same, adjudicate the said complaint and issue necessary directions to the Sub-Registrar.

¶7In the present case, unfortunately the petitioner had approached the Sub-Registrar and though the Sub-Registrar had recognized the mistake which had happened and called upon the District Registrar to provide permission for necessary correction, the same was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 68(2) of the Act, since the complaint and/or the representation would have had to have made to the District Registrar.

¶8faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary representation or complaint would be made by the

petitioner to the District Registrar within a week's time from now.

¶9If such a representation / complaint is made by the petitioner, the District Registrar is directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible, after issuing notices to all concerned, whose right would be affected in relation there to. No infirmity can be found with Annexure-A issued by the District Registrar or the Sub-Registrar.

¶10With the above observation, the petition stands disposed.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34