Karnataka High Court
Sri Vemanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14708
WP No. 9256 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 9256 OF 2024 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VEMANNA,
SON OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No. K.152,
9TH CROSS, LALABAGH FORT ROAD,
DODDA MAVALLI,
BANGALORE 560004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by NAGAVENI DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION,
Location: HIGH KANDAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR,
COURT OF KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560009.
REPRSENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
2. THE SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR,
ANEKAL SUB DIVISON,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE 562102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14708
WP No. 9256 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE UNDATED IMPUGNED ORDER, PASSED BY THE
SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR, ANEKAL (ANNEXURE-A) IN THE
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO NOTICE No.P-7778/2005-06 AND
DIRECT R-2 TO REGISTER THE SALE DEED DATED 16.11.2005
WITHOUT INSISTING UPON THE PRODUCTION OF THE '11E'
SKETCH AND TO PASS ANY SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AND
DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer;
" In the circumstances, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased, in the interests of justice and equity, to quash the undated Impugned Order, passed by the Senior Sub Registrar, Anekal (Annexure-A) in the proceedings pursuant to Notice No.P-7778/2005-06 and direct the Respondent No.2 to register the Sale Deed dated 16.11.2005 without insisting upon the production of the '11E' Sketch and to pass any such further orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14708 WP No. 9256 of 2024
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhananjay Joshi appearing for Smt. Kavitha Damodaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K S Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State.
3. Learned Senior counsel would submit that this Court need not delve deep into the matter as the issue involved is non- registration of the document for want of '11E' Sketch and the issue in the lis stands answered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Vaishali vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Stamps and Registration and another1 against which, the State has preferred an appeal and the appeal is pending consideration. Notwithstanding the same, this Court in several judgments has directed registration of a document, which would be subject to the outcome of the appeal.
4. In the light of the said circumstances, I deem it appropriate to quote the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which reads as follows;
" 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, 1 2021 SCC OnLine 15920.-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14708 WP No. 9256 of 2024 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the purchasing subject land vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.12.2010, the respondent No. 2/Sub-Registrar did not handover the original registered sale deed to the petitioner. Subsequently, when the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-C dated 21.09.2021, the respondent. No. 2 issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C made on the said representation rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of the registered sale deed in his favour on the sole ground that the petitioner has not produced that the ' 11E' sketch as required under Section 131 (c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964') r/w Rule 46 (h) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules of 1966'). In this context, Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in relation to the production of ' 11E' sketch, the State Government had issued a Circular dated 06.04.2009 requiring production of ' 11E' sketch at the time of registration of the documents by the registering authorities. The said Circular dated 06.04.2009 was called in question before this Court in the case of G. Ramachar v. State of Karnataka [AIR 2016 (3) KLJ Page 1.] , wherein this Court has quashed the said circular as well as Section 22 A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Karnataka Amendment). It is also submitted that by virtue of the striking down of Section 22 A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Karnataka Amendment) as well as the aforesaid circular dated 06.04.2009 issued by the State Government in pursuance of the said provision, it was not open for the respondent No. 2-registering authority to -5- NC: 2024:KHC:14708 WP No. 9256 of 2024 insist upon production of the 11 E' sketch for the purpose of registration of the sale deed. In this context, Learned Counsel also places reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt Vaishali v. The Sub Registrar [ W.P. No. 117177/2019 dated 18.03.2021.] , in order to contend that the decision of this Court in RAMA CHAR'S case, has been followed and identical/similar endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar was quashed and this Court issued necessary directions to the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deeds produced by the petitioner therein without insisting upon production of the '11E' sketch. It is therefore submitted that having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C dated 21.09.2021 deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State Government has opened a website https://kaverionline.kamataka.gov.in to enable the registering authorities to upload all registered documents; it is submitted that website as it stands now does not permit uploading of registered documents in the absence of ' 11E' sketch and consequently, in addition to directing the respondents to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, it is also necessary to issue appropriate directions to respondent No. 1 to make necessary changes corrections in the said website so as to enable uploading of the registered documents without insisting on production of '11E' sketch. It is therefore submitted that appropriate directions in this regard are to be issued to respondent No. 1.-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:14708 WP No. 9256 of 2024
5. Per contra, Learned HCGP for respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Insofar relief (a) sought for by the petitioner, is concerned, as rightly contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the decisions of this Court in RAMACHAR AND VAISHALI'S case, supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned Endorsement dated 21.09.2021 issued by respondent No. 2 is clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to respondent No. 2/Sub- Registrar to handover registered Sale Deed dated 18.12.2010 to the petitioner without insisting upon production of ' 1 IE' sketch by the petitioner.
7. Insofar as prayer (b) for issuance of necessary directions to the State Government to carry out necessary changes/corrections in the website by the registering authorities throughout the State of Karnataka without insisting on production of '11E' sketch and even in the absence of the said '11E' sketch is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the decision of this Court in RAMACHAR's case, it has become absolutely essential on the part of respondent No. 1 to make necessary changes/corrections in the aforesaid website and take necessary steps to enable uploading of documents by the registering authorities even in the absence of '11E' sketch and without insisting for production of the same."-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:14708 WP No. 9256 of 2024
5. In the light of the issue standing answered, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned Order at Annexure-A undated issued by
respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to handover the
registered Sale Deed dated 16.11.2005 to the petitioner without insisting upon production of '11E' sketch within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv. Respondent No.1/State of Karnataka is also directed to carry out/make necessary changes/corrections in the website https://kaverionline.kamataka.gov.in to enable uploading registered documents on the aforesaid website without insisting on production of '11E' sketch and even in the absence of '11E' sketch -8- NC: 2024:KHC:14708 WP No. 9256 of 2024 by incorporating suitable changes corrections in the aforesaid website as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34