Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Narayan Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270
WP No. 106079 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 106079 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O NARAYAN GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT GUDDESHIRGOD,
POST. SARKULI, TQ. SIDDAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581450.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MANU R. HEGDE AND
SRI. RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER
RAKESH
SIRSI SUB DIVISION, TQ. SIRSI
S
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581401.
HARIHAR
Digitally signed 3. THE TAHSILDAR SIRSI TALUK
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581401.
Date: 2025.12.11
16:39:19 +0530
4. THE SUB REGISTRAR SIRSI TALUK
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION
DTD. 02.06.2025 BRG.NO. RRT/E-98756/25 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270
WP No. 106079 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
A) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned communication dtd: 02.06.2025 brg. No. RRT/E-98756/25 vide Annexure-F issued by respondent No.2, in the interest of justice and equity.
B) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dtd: 19.07.2025 brg.No.RRT/Pahani Tiddupadi/ViVa-147/2024-25-E-
73381-25 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-G, in the interest of justice and equity. C) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dtd: 25.07.2025 brg. No. UNoKaShi/ 45/2025-26 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-H, in the interest of justice and equity.
D) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to Register the sale certificate issued by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, in Execution Case No. 89/2015, dated 03.12.2022 vide Annexure-A without insisting on the presence of the judgment debtors in of the terms of Section 89 (2) of the Registration Act 1908, in the interest of justice and equity.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270 WP No. 106079 of 2025 HC-KAR E) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 and 3 to enter the name of the Petitioner, into the revenue records in respect of properties in brg.Sy. No. 70/4 measuring 33 guntas and Sy. No. 72/3 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Neralavalli village, Sampakhand hobli, Sirsi taluk, in the interest of justice and equity. F) Pass such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra V. Bhat and Sri.Manu R. Hegde, appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA-Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for respondents.
3. The petitioner purchased land in Survey No.72 measuring 5 acres and 11 guntas in a Court auction. The Court of the Civil Judge, Sirsi, issued a certificate of sale in favour of the petitioner in Execution Case No.89 of 2015. The petitioner sought registration of the sale certificate before respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.4 rejected the request of the petitioner on the score that the application could not be processed as it was not a compromise decree. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270 WP No. 106079 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Respondent No.4 further rejected the request on the score that limitation under Section 23 has expired and therefore, the document could not be registered. This rejection is called into question before this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) does not contemplate for any limitation under Section 23 of the Limitation Act to be projected for the purpose of registration and would submit that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in K.M. SRIKANTA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein the Court has held as follows:
"6. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be necessary to extract Section 89(4) of the said Act of 1908, which reads as under:
"89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed.
(1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1."1
2024 SCC OnLine Kar 6974 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270 WP No. 106079 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. A plain reading of Section 89(4) of the said Act of 1908 is sufficient to come to the conclusion that immediately after the Registering Officer receiving the Sale Certificate from the Officer/Official Liquidator, it is incumbent upon him to make an entry in this regard without insisting upon payment of stamp duty. The said issue/question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of The Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal (supra), wherein it is held as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has made a valiant endeavor to persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) but not successfully. It is logically so as this issue has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view followed for the last 150 years. We may refer to the judgments by the Madras High Court in the Board of Revenue No. 2 of 1875 (In Re : Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty, by the Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram v. Masarat-un- Nissa1 opining that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind mentioned in clause (b) of Section 17 of Act III of 1877 and is not compulsorily registrable and this Court's view in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank opining that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the Authorised Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchase with a copy forwarded to the Registering Authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act and order of this Court in M.A. No. 19262/2021 in SLP(C) No. 29752/2019 dated 29.10.2021 opining that once a direction is issued for the duly validated certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act, it has the same effect as registration and obviates the requirement of any further action.
2. It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Costs this time has been spared but will not be spared the next time.
3. The needful be done in terms of the impugned judgment(s) within 15 days from today.
4. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
5. Pending applications stand disposed of."-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270 WP No. 106079 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. A similar view was taken by this Court in Panduranga Acharya's case (supra), wherein it was held as under:
"3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the purchaser in respect of the auction conducted by Union Bank of India for realising certain sum due from the borrowers. The Sale Certificate dated 4-12-2012 as at Annexure-B was issued in favour of the petitioner. However, the borrower had assailed the action of Union Bank of India by filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The proceedings in the Debts Recovery Tribunal came to be disposed of on 21-10-2013. In that circumstance, the Sale Certificate was required to be entered in the Register maintained in the Office of the first respondent. The Union Bank of India being exempted from appearance before the Authority, had issued a letter dated 9- 11-2013 (Annexure-D) addressed to the first respondent. Pursuant thereto the petitioner has also addressed a communication dated 13-11-2013 to the first respondent. The first respondent has however issued an endorsement dated 23-11-2013 stating therein that registration of the document cannot be made after lapse of four months from the date of execution of the Sale Certificate. Though from the manner in which the endorsement has been issued to the petitioner, it is seen that the first respondent has construed it as registration and applied the time stipulated under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, what is necessary to be noticed is that in the instant case, the first respondent was required to enter the transaction of Sale Certificate in Book-I maintained by them as contemplated under Section 89 of the Act.
4. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, all that the first respondent was expected to do is to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 89 of the Act by entering the Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner in Book-I as maintained in the said Office or by making such entry in electronic records. This position of law has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. SHANTI DEVI L. SINGH v. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, (1990) 3 SCC 605 : AIR 1991 SC 1880 and also by this Court in the case of THOMSON PLANTATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KODAGU v. SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, MADIKERI (2006) 1 Kant LJ 403. In that view of the matter, the endorsement dated 23-11-2013 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition is not sustainable and the same is accordingly quashed.
5. A direction is issued to the first respondent to enter the transaction of the Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner in Book-I as contemplated under Section 89 of the Act and provide such documents in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. The said procedure shall be complied by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible, but not later -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270 WP No. 106079 of 2025 HC-KAR than four weeks from the date on which a certified copy is furnished to the first respondent. The petition stands disposed of in above terms."
9. As it is clear from the provision contained in Section 89(4) of the said Act of 1908 and the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court, referred to supra, immediately upon receipt of Sale Certificate dated 20.04.2023 from the Official Liquidator, NCLT, respondent No. 3 was duty bound to make an entry in this regard in Book No. 1 of the record in terms of Section 89(4) of the said Act of 1908 without insisting or calling upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty and consequently, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A is not only illegal and arbitrary, but also without jurisdiction or authority of law and also contrary to the provisions contained in Section 89(4) of the said Act of 1908, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The learned AGA though would refute the submission of the petitioner and states that the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the position of law as is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of K.M. SRIKANTHA supra.
7. In the light of the issue being completely answered by what is rendered by the afore-quoted judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench, the petition deserves to succeed. However, this Court on 02.12.2025 had passed the following order.
"Learned AGA submits that in the light of the observations made by this Court on 03.11.2025, corrective measures have been taken and would produce the same on the next date of hearing.
List on 04.12.2025 in fresh matters list"-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270 WP No. 106079 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. The learned AGA submits that pursuant to the order, the software has been corrected and henceforth the problem projected herein would not arise.
9. In that light, according to the said submission, the petition deserves to be allowed.
10. The other circumstance that is sans countenance is the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejects the claim of this petitioner for entry of his name in the revenue records on account of his auction purchase in the Court sale, on the score that it was not a compromise decree. The Assistant Commissioner appears to be blissfully ignorant of law. Therefore, it need not be a compromise decree alone that can be directed to be registered or the change of revenue entries. Even a Court sale is a valid sale in the eye of law.
11. In that light, the impugned endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner is rendered unsustainable. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17270 WP No. 106079 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. For all the reasons stated above, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned communication dated 02.06.2025 vide Annexure-F, the impugned endorsement dated 19.07.2025 vide Annexure-G and impugned endorsement dated 25.07.2025 vide Annexure-H are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/-CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35