Karnataka High Court
Mr D Ravindra Kumar vs The Mysore Urban Development Authority on 18 February, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.32126 OF 2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR D RAVINDRA KUMAR,
S/O LATE DAMODAR DAS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 29,
SATYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHANAGAR
MYSURU - 570 011. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
K.G.KOPPAL, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 005.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T.P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT TO DELETE THE
ENDORSEMENT AT THE END IN THE SALE DEED DATED
31.03.2015 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT AT ANNEX-F IN TERMS
OF WHICH THE PETITIONER IS FORCED TO PURCHASE THE
MARGINAL LAND MEASURING 1081.25 SQ. FEET ADJACENT TO
THE PROPERTY BEARING 153, YADAVGIRI EXTENSION, MYSORE
CITY, MYSORE I.E., SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plot bearing No.153 situated at Yadavagiri Extension, Mysore City, measuring 15187.50 sq. feet was allotted to one K Venkataramanappa in an auction conducted by the then Mysore City Improvement Trust Board on 6.11.1945. The auction purchaser sold the plot in question to various persons and thereafter, the petitioner has purchased the said plot in question from Sri Kimatram and Sri Damodardas by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.3.1964. Though the allotment was made in favour of the original auction purchaser Sri K Venkataramanappa, the petitioner submitted an application with the respondent - Authority so as to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the plot in question. The petitioner also undertook to purchase the abutting marginal land belonging to the Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short `MUDA').
2. In pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent - Authority executed the registered sale deed dated 31.3.2015 in favour of the petitioner, however in the sale deed, it was endorsed that the petitioner shall purchase 3 the marginal land on the northern side belonging to the respondent - MUDA. The petitioner being aggrieved by the endorsement made on the sale deed has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent - Authority having executed the registered sale deed has endorsed on the sale deed that the petitioner is required to purchase the marginal land belonging to the respondent - Authority and the same is contrary to the Transfer of Properties Act. Hence, he submits that the endorsement made on the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is void and cannot be enforced against the petitioner. He further submits that the demand notice issued by the respondent - MUDA calling upon the petitioner to pay the sale consideration for the marginal land to be purchased by the petitioner also requires to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the representation submitted by the petitioner, an undertaking given by the petitioner that he would purchase the marginal land. The respondent - MUDA has made an endorsement on the sale deed requiring the petitioner to purchase the marginal land belonging to the petitioner. Hence, 4 he submits that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the endorsement made on the sale deed.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner undertook to purchase the marginal land belonging to the respondent - MUDA. The respondent - MUDA has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner by endorsing that the petitioner is required to purchase the marginal land in view of the representation and undertaken given by the petitioner. Though the petitioner has undertaken to purchase the marginal land, the respondent - MUDA cannot compel the petitioner to purchase the marginal land. The respondent - MUDA could have enforced such condition had the marginal land been a part and parcel of plot No.153 at the time of allotment to Mr.K Venkataramappa. In the absence of any provisions requiring the petitioner to purchase the marginal land at the time of execution of registered sale deed in respect of the plot, which was purchased by the vendor of the petitioner in an auction proceedings, the impugned endorsement requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following: 5
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned endorsement made on the sale deed dated 31.3.2015 at Annexure-F by the respondent requiring the petitioner to purchase the marginal land on the northern side of the plot in question is held to be void and unenforceable against the petitioner and consequently the demand/endorsement issued by the respondent dated 28.4.2016 vide Annexure-K is also hereby quashed.
It is made clear that the petitioner has no right, tile whatsoever over the marginal land in question and if he is in possession, the same requires to surrendered in favour of the respondent - MUDA.
The respondent - MUDA is required to execute a rectification deed for rectifying the sale deed dated 31.3.2015, the cost of which is to be borne by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM