Sri B.N. Sridhar vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Justice B.S. Patil, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F, thereby informing the Sub-Registrar, Banavara, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District, not to register any document in respect of the sites comprised in R.S.No.243 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and 2 acre 2 guntas belonging to the petitioner, until the representation submitted by one B.C.Moksha Raj S/o Channappa of Banavara was considered in detail and a decision was taken in that regard. Petitioner is also challenging the consequential communication dated 25.11.2010 issued by the Sub Registrar, Banavara of Arsikere Taluk, addressed to the petitioner, thereby informing him that as per the direction issued by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, the registration of sites formed in the land bearing R.S.No.243 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and 2 acres 2 guntas had been temporarily withheld till further directions were received from the Executive Officer. The petition averments disclose that R.S.No.243 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas was converted for non-agricultural purposes way back on 23.06.1989. The remaining extent of 2 acres 2 guntas was later on got converted for non-agricultural purposes on 14.08.1989. Petitioner and his predecessors-in-title claim to have formed sites in the said land and have disposed of some of them to several third parties. It is their assertion that Gram Panchayath, Kachighatta, had issued No Objection Certificate for formation of sites. That being the position, the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath has issued the impugned communication on 27.08.2010 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, calling upon him not to effect registration of any sale deeds in respect of the sites formed in R.S.No.243 which has been got converted way back in the year 1989, wherein sites have been formed and some of which have already been sold.

The basis for receiving such a communication, as can be seen from the impugned communication Annexure-F is; that one B.C.Moksha Raj had alleged that the petitioner had formed 98 sites in the land in question after obtaining No Objection from Banavara Gram Panchayath by suppressing (he original layout sketch and by committing fraud against the panchayath. In the opinion of the Executive Officer, the allegations made by B.C.Moksha Raj required detailed investigation and therefore, until the truth In the matter was ascertained, the Sub-Registrar had to be requested not to effect registration of any of the sale deeds in respect of the sites formed in the land in question. Therefore, he was persuaded to issue the impugned communication to the Sub-Registrar asking him not to register the sale deeds.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath has no such power to prevent the petitioner from executing the sale deeds in respect of the sites formed by him nor can he issue an intimation to the Sub-Registrar calling upon him not to effect registration of the document. His submission is that the power exercised by the Executive Officer is not traceable to any of the provisions of law and it is a clear case of exercise of power without jurisdiction by the Executive Officer in issuing the impugned communication.

Respondent No.2 though served has remained unrepresented.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 4 submits that the Sub-Registrar has acted In accordance with the request made by the Executive Officer by informing the petitioner that the registration of the document was temporarily withheld in view of the communication addressed by the Executive Officer. He submits that as soon as the Executive Officer completes the enquiry contemplated by him and issues necessary communication, the Sub-Registrar will take action in accordance with law.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the petition averments and the materials on record, I And that the Executive Officer has not come to any prima facie conclusion based on the allegation made by B.C.Moksha Raj after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to have his say In the matter regarding the illegalities alleged. He has simply referred to the allegations of alleged suppression of material and fraud committed by the petitioner in formation of sites and has come to the conclusion that further transactions pertaining to registration of sale of sites formed in the land had to be prevented.

As rightly contended by the Counsel for the petitioner, this decision taken by the Executive Officer and the communication addressed by him to the Sub-Registrar affects the Interest of the petitioner. The Executive Officer could not have come to such a conclusion without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without recording reasons for his conclusion. The impugned communication also does not disclose that any notice was given to the petitioner to appear before him on any specified date to have his say in the matter. Though the Impugned order states that registration of the sites was to be withheld till the investigation was completed in the absence of any investigation undertaken or enquiry initiated, the order appears to have the effect of indefinitely preventing the petitioner from getting the sale deeds registered that too without recording any conclusion supported by reasons. In such circumstances, the impugned communication cannot be sustained. Hence, tills writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication Annexure-F is quashed. Consequently, the communication addressed by the Sub-Registrar. Banavara, to the petitioner vide Annexure-L is also quashed. Petitioner is directed to file his objections before respondent No.2 within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, treating the contents of Annexure-F as show cause notice, whereupon respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter, after hearing all the affected persons including the Gram Panchayath.