Karnataka High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32669-DB
WA No. 1087 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1087 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHESH KUMAR
S/O LATE NAND KISHORE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT 3RD FLOOR, GOLD TOWER
NO.50, RESIDENCY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 025.
2. KUSUM TAYAL
W/O CHETAN TAYAL
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT 3RD FLOOR, GOLD TOWER
Digitally NO.5, RESIDENCY ROAD
signed by BENGALURU - 560 025.
SRIDEVI S
Location: 3. BHARATHI TAYAL
High Court W/O MAHESH KUMAR
of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
10TH CROSS, PIPE LINE ROAD
NEAR TEJAS NURSING HOME
CHOLURUPALA
BENGALURU - 560 023.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI DHANANJAY V. JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VACHAN H.U., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32669-DB
WA No. 1087 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF STAMPS
AND DUTIES, 8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 438
[email protected]
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUB REGISTRAR.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARDS (KIADB)
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED BY THE
SINGLE BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA IN W.P. No. 15098 OF 2024 (GM-RES) AND
ALLOW THE W.P. No. 15098 OF 2024 (GM-RES) & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32669-DB
WA No. 1087 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.2/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal inter alia impugning an order dated 20.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15098/2024(GM-RES) captioned 'Mahesh Kumar and others. v. State of Karnataka and others'.
3. The appellants have filed the aforementioned writ petition inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents to release the original sale deeds in respect of properties falling in Survey No. 31/ 2 BP, 35/P2, 76/P41, 35/P3, 76/P23, 83/P1, 33/1, 50/2, 76/P5, 76/P35, 76/P41, 52/P1 and 52/P-P1 (subject land) in Beechnakuppe and Avarahalli Villages, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. The appellants claim that they had purchased the subject land measuring 28 acres and 23.75 guntas through -4- NC: 2025:KHC:32669-DB WA No. 1087 of 2025 HC-KAR registered sale deeds executed between the period 2008 to 2011. They are aggrieved by the respondents declining to release the sale deeds on the ground that 11E sketch was not provided at the time of the registration of the documents. The concerned authorities had also referred to a Government Circular requiring such sketch to be furnished. The learned Single Judge did not accept that the decision of the respondents to withhold the sale deeds for want of the appellants furnishing the 11E sketch, required any interference. In view of the above, the petition filed by the appellants was disposed of in the following terms.
"4. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the sale deeds will be released in favour of the petitioners subject to furnishing of 11-E sketch. Therefore, it is expedient to dispose off the petition directing the second respondent to release the registered original sale deeds as enumerated in Schedule-I of the writ petition, subject to petitioners furnishing the 11-E sketch. The said exercise shall be completed within two weeks from the date of furnishing of the 11-E sketch."
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that it is not necessary for the parties to submit the 11E sketch as demanded.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32669-DB WA No. 1087 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. The appellants have relied upon the judgments of this Court, where the requirement of furnishing 11E sketches for the purpose of registration had been rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that some of the judgments rendered by this Court were carried in appeal before the Supreme Court, and the court has granted interim orders staying those judgments. He referred the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka and Others versus N.S. Rukmani:
Special Leave to Appeal(C) No.12351/2021 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06.04.2021 passed by this Court in WA No.3589/2019. He submits that the issue whether registration of sale deed requires the parties to furnish the 11E sketch is the subject matter of the Special Leave petitions pending before the Supreme Court. And, the orders of this Court directing that the same are not necessary have been stayed.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel submit that the appellants have submitted 11E sketches in respect of several portions of the subject land. Clearly, this Court is not required to make any observations in this regard, as there is no ambiguity in the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has expressly directed -6- NC: 2025:KHC:32669-DB WA No. 1087 of 2025 HC-KAR that, subject to the appellants furnishing the 11E sketch, the original sale deeds set out in 'Schedule I' of the writ petition would be released.
7. 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.
8. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63