The Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps v. M Arumugam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN:

¶1THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS KANDHAYA BHAVAN 8TH FLOOR, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶2THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS NO.12, 1ST FLOOR 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA 4TH BLOCK EAST BENGALURU - 560 011

3. THE SUB-REGISTRAR BEGUR ROAD

Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42374-DB( WA(No.(248(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010061662026( ( ( JOSEPH LAYOUT DEVARACHIKKANA HALLI BENGALURU - 560 068 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1M. ARUMUGAM S/O MURUGA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RDR/AT NO.106/A, 3 CROSS ST1 MAIN ROAD PRAKASHANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 021 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAHUL S. REDDY., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.1170/2025 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.1/2026, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶2The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 19.06.2025, passed in W.P.No.1170/2025 (GM-ST/RN), whereby appellant No.3 herein was directed to consider the representation dated 27.11.2023 and register the documents in compliance with the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17025/2023. The court further directed that the entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from date of the order. The Registering Authority was directed not to insist upon 11-E sketch (survey sketch) insofar as the registration of sale deeds is concerned in respect of the subject land.

¶3The appellants were insisting upon the furnishing of such sketch for registering the sale deeds in terms of a Circular dated

06.04.2009 issued by the Government, which Circular had been set aside by this Court by an order dated 18.03.2016 in W.P.No.18939/2009 and other connected matters.

¶4It is relevant to note that the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.17025/2023, compliance whereof was directed by the impugned order, was the subject matter of appeal in W.A.No.1063/2025 (KLR-RR/SUR). The said appeal was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated

26.11.2025, whereby the order dated 07.11.2023 was set aside and directions in terms as set out hereinbefore were issued.

¶5The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that some of the orders striking down the said requirement of furnishing the 11-E sketch were carried in appeal and the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) are pending before the Supreme Court. He states that notices have been issued, but the SLPs have not been disposed of by the Supreme Court. He has also handed over an order dated 11.07.2016 in SLP (C) Nos. 15837-15838/2016,

whereby the judgments passed by this Court to the aforesaid effect were stayed.

¶6He submits that notwithstanding the stay of the decision of this Court, the learned Single Judge had directed that the registrations be effected without insisting upon the 11-E sketch, in terms of the orders passed by this Court.

¶7The learned Additional Government Advocate points out that in one such matter in W.A.No.1087/2025 [GM-RES], this Court by an order dated 21.08.2025 [NC: 2025: KHC: 32669-DB] disposed of the appeal with the following observations: "We also consider it apposite to clarify that in the event the appellants do not furnish the 11E sketch and stand by their contention that the same is not necessary, the respondents would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the sale deeds, which are subject matter of the writ petition, as well. This observation would obviously be relevant if the appellants do not furnish the 11E sketch as directed. In the event the appellants furnish the 11E sketches as required, the respondents shall abide by the directions of the learned Single Judge, as set out in the impugned order."

¶8The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the present appeal may also be disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶9In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. It is further directed that in the event the respondent furnishes the 11-E sketch, the concerned authority shall register the documents as required and release the documents after registration. However, in the event the respondent does not furnish the 11-E sketch and pursues his contention that the same is not necessary, the parties shall await and abide by the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the said the issue.

¶10The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶11Pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11