Karnataka High Court
Smt D A Revathi vs Bangalore Development Authority on 6 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4982
WP No. 27401 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 27401 OF 2023 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT D A REVATHI,
W/O LATE D.R. ARUNACHALAM,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.138, BAJAJ 1ST MAIN
DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036,
SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR B M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU - 560020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed
by BELUR 2. THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES
RANGADHAMA
NANDINI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
Location: HIGH A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT SITUATED AT NO.15
1ST C CROSS, 3RD FLOOR C.K.C.GARDEN,
OPP. B.I.O. HOSPITAL K.H.ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD),
BENGALURU - 560 027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI CHETHAN S P, ADV. FOR
SRI NISHANTH A V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4982
WP No. 27401 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.11.2023 BEARING NO. A.E.H.B.C.S/
892 VIDE ANNEXURE - E ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed challenging the endorsement
dated 17.11.2023 marked at Annexure-E issued by the 2nd
respondent. In terms of the said endorsement, the 2nd
respondent Co-operative Society refused to accept the
request of the petitioner to rectify the boundaries in the
registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner.
Sale deed dated 10.07.2006 is produced at Annexure-A.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is an error in describing the boundaries of the said
property and he would also submit that the boundaries do
NC: 2024:KHC:4982
not tally with the approved layout plan approved by the
Bangalore Development Authority.
4. It is also urged that the endorsement is issued on
the premise that this Court has granted an interim order in
W.P. No.50216-18/2012 and connected matters vide order
dated 13.12.2012 restraining modification of the sale
deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the said interim order is in respect of some
other layout. It is further urged that as against the
respondent No.2-Society, this Court in quite a few matters
marked at Annexures-F to H and J to L has passed orders
directing the rectification wherever there is a need for
rectification. Thus, he would contend that the impugned
order is unsustainable as the issue involved in the case is
covered in terms of the law laid down vide orders marked
at Annexures-F to H and J to L.
5. Learned counsel for the first respondent Bangalore
Development Authority would submit that the Bangalore
Development Authority has approved the layout plan and
NC: 2024:KHC:4982
if the boundaries shown in the said plan is contrary to the
boundaries shown in the registered sale deed, there can
be a rectification in the boundaries shown in the sale deed
to bring the sale deed in conformity with the description
shown in the approved layout plan.
6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would
submit that there is a mismatch in the boundary shown in
the registered sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioner and the boundaries shown in the approved
layout plan.
7. The counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit
that the rectification will only clarify the doubt relating to
the boundaries in respect of the properties mentioned in
the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and it
does not amount to conveyance of a new property.
8. It is also relevant to note that impugned
endorsement is issued by referring to an interim order
passed in a writ petition which is not connected to the
NC: 2024:KHC:4982
petition property or the respondent-Society. It is not the
case of the respondents that the boundaries in the sale
deed executed in favour of the petitioner if rectified, will
affect the right of a third party.
9. After considering the materials placed on record
and for the reasons already recorded, this Court is of the
view that the impugned endorsement is unsustainable. In
the judgments marked at Annexures-F to H and J to L
passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.2006/2016, W.P. No.18329/2016, W.P.
No.32159/2017, W.P. No.6955/2019, W.P. No.24165/2022
and W.P. No.1861/2023 respectively, this Court has
permitted rectification of the boundaries whenever the
boundaries are erroneously described in the sale deed.
Hence, the following:-
(i) The writ petition is allowed and impugned
endorsement dated 17.11.2023 marked at
Annexure-E is quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC:4982
(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to rectify the
boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated
10.07.2006 marked at Annexure-A executed in
favour of husband of the petitioner and to
execute necessary documents in this regard as
required under law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CHS
