M/S Kanthi Properties vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 4029 Kant

                             1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
                         BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
        WRIT PETITION No.18813 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

M/S KANTHI PROPERTIES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.34/1, 2ND FLOOR, 'G' BLOCK,
SAHAKARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 092,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. M. CHANDRASEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O PULLAMA RAJU

                                              .. PETITIONER
(By SRI. K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BENGALURU - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.     THE SUB REGISTRAR,
       MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BUILDING,
       DEVANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN TO REGISTER THE SALE DEED
DATED 1.3.2021 (ANNEXURE - A) WHICH IS KEPT PENDING
REGISTRATION, BEARING NO.2020-21, BOOK I, P-11063 AND
                                   2




RELEASE THE SAME FORTHWITH                IN   FAVOUR   OF    THE
PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.,

    THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is against the

pendency of process of registration of the document in

question presented by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent -

Sub Registrar for registration.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate on

request having accepted notice for the respondents opposes

the writ petition contending that at times there will be heavy

workload on the shoulders of Authorities; there may be other

technical aspects that come in the way of accomplishing the

registration process; whatever that be, the writ petition is not

the right remedy in matters of this kind; so contending he

seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to

grant indulgence in the matter in as much as the process of

registration after presentation of the documents by the

rightful persons cannot be indefinitely delayed; apparently

nothing comes out from the records as to why the delay is

brooked by the 2nd respondent - Sub registrar in the matter of

registrable document is a serious matter in as much as

without registration, the efficacy will not be obtained by the

transaction comprised in the document in question; therefore,

the beneficiaries of the conveyance will have a lot of anxiety

where the registration is delayed unreasonably; this is not a

happy thing to happen to the scrupulous citizens.

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of directing the 2nd respondent to accomplish the registration

process, if things accord with law, within a period one month

from the date of copy of this judgment is handed, failing

which he shall pay to the petitioner Rs.10,000/- per day of

the delay brooked in the matter.

All other contentions are kept open.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE RR