Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sathish C. Sanu vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30284
WP No. 4656 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 4656 OF 2017 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SATHISH C. SANU
S/O SRI CHANDRAKANTH P. SANU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MARUTHI KRIPA
ALAKE
MANGALURU (D.K.)-575 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY .T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
by ALBHAGYA DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
Location: HIGH MANGALURU - 575 003.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 003.
4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
D.K. DISTRICT
MANGALURU - 575 003.
5. GILBERT LASRADO
S/O LATE CYRIL LASRADO
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30284
WP No. 4656 of 2017
MAJOR
RESIDING AT KODIKAL
MANGALURU
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 006
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.S. HARISHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRYAING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS FROM THE R-2 AND 4 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN
ISSUING ANNEXURE-A ORDER DTD:21.6.2016 MADE IN
C.DIS.RAP.209/2013-14 BY THE R-2 AND THE SPOT INSPECTION
REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE R-4 DTD:21.3.2016 MADE IN
NO.S.U.P.42/15-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, wherein the
Deputy Commissioner exercising revisional power under
Section 136(3) relying on spot inspection submitted by
respondent No.4 has come to conclusion that the property
purchased by the petitioner herein and the one which was
granted by the Land Tribunal to respondent No.4 are one
and the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:30284
2. Though this Court is of the opinion that Deputy
Commissioner exercising revisional power under Section
136(3) has exceeded in its jurisdiction, but, however, this
reasoning has lost its significance in the light of the decree
granted in favour of the respondent No.4 in
O.S.No.1410/2016.
3. Perusal of the same, this Court noticed that
though petitioner instituted a bare suit for injunction,
respondent No.5 set up a counter claim and sought
declaration thereby challenging the sale deed dated
07.10.2016 obtained by the petitioner. The Court has
dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner herein and the
counter claim which is a comprehensive suit set up by the
respondent No.5 is decreed.
4. Before this Court proceeds further, it would be
necessary to cull out the operative portion of the judgment
rendered in O.S.No.1410/2016. The same reads as under:
"The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed
with costs.
NC: 2024:KHC:30284
The counter claim of the defendants is hereby
decreed with costs.
It is hereby declared that Sale Deed dated
07.10.2016 registered as document No.MGC-1-
04812-2016/17 only in respect of plaint schedule
property which is akin to written statement schedule
property is null and void and not binding on the
defendants and the legal heirs of Cyril Lasrado and
on the plaint schedule property and same is
unenforceable and does not convey any right, title
and interest.
Further, plaintiff, his men, servants, agents or
anyone claiming through or under him are hereby
restrained by way of permanent prohibitory
injunction from trespassing into the written
statement schedule property or interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
defendants over written statement schedule
property and also from alienating, transferring or
encumbering the same in any manner.
Draw decree accordingly."
5. The decree is also placed on record by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. The
decree pertains to Sy.No.5-15C, which is the subject
matter of this petition. If the petitioner's sale deed in
NC: 2024:KHC:30284
respect of the petition property is declared to be null and
void and not binding on respondent No.5, the captioned
petition assailing the order passed by the respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner does not survive for
consideration.
6. The rights of the parties are adjudicated by a
competent Civil Court and therefore, the petitioner needs
to be relegated to work out his remedy in pending regular
appeal.
7. Be that as it may, it is needless to mention that
the rights of the petitioner, if any, will be subject to
outcome of the pending regular appeal.
8. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
