[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Suma B Mekki vs The Karnataka State Judiciary ... on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
WP No.33226 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
WRIT PETITION NO.33226 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT SUMA B. MEKKI,
W/O LATE BASAVARAJ MEKKI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
NO.123, 2ND MAIN, 4TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.P.KULKARNI., SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI VASANTHA KUMAR K M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIARY
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.7/2, SURYA CHAMBERS,
Digitally 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
signed by SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020,
KAVYA G REPTD BY ITS PRESIDENT.
Location:
High Court 2. THE SECRETARY,
of Karnataka THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIARY,
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE,
R/O NO.7/2 SURYA CHAMBERS,
2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD., BY ITS SECRETARY,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
WP No.33226 of 2025
HC-KAR
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(GA SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 20.12.2024 MADE IN EX.P.NO.1606/2021 PASSED BY THE
XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO
LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE. (ANNEXURE-L) ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction for setting aside an
order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Execution Petition
No.1606/2021 by XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bengaluru. A further relief is sought for directing the
first and second respondents, which is a housing Co-operative
Society, to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in
respect of schedule Site No.1658 situated in judicial layout near
Jakkur Airport formed by the first respondent Co-operative
Society. The first respondent Co-operative Society is the
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
HC-KAR
Karnataka State Judiciary Employees House Building
Cooperative Society Limited. An alternative relief is also sought
for a direction to the court to continue and proceed with
Execution Petition No.1606/2021 without reference to the
orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.32589/2018 dated
12.11.2024 and to the pendency of W.A.No.26/2024 before the
Division Bench of this Court.
3. The petitioner herein is a decree holder who has
filed the aforesaid Execution Petition No.1606/2021. It appears
that in W.P.No.40994/2002, this High Court has directed the
Co-operative Society not to allot or alienate any site until the
layout plan submitted by the Co-operative Society is approved
and duly sanctioned by the BDA1 and the State Government.
4. In the order of 03.12.2024, the Executing Court
noticed that the decree holder is not a party in the aforesaid
writ petition No.40994/2002 and the site in question was
allotted to the decree holder on 04.01.1993 with the entire sale
consideration being paid by the decree holder and a possession
certificate was issued in his favour on 11.08.1994, which is well
before the order of the High Court in W.P.No.40994/2002. The
Bangalore Development Authority
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
HC-KAR
award further notices that the award in favour of the decree
holder was passed on 16.05.2011. But the judgment debtor has
delayed the execution of the sale deed; that in various writ
petitions, the High Court has issued directions to either the
BBMP2 or the BDA to develop civic amenities at the site and to
sanction/approve the layout plan within a fixed period time;
that the BDA is yet to approve the lay-out plan. The order
further observes that the decree holder cannot be indefinitely
compelled to wait under the pretext of compliance with the
order of the High Court in W.P.No.40994/2002; that the order
specifically prohibits new allotment of sites and does not apply
to sites already allotted and for which possession has been
delivered; that the direction in W.P.No.40994/2022 does not
impede the execution of the sale deeds for the sites already
allotted and possession of which is delivered prior to the order.
Accordingly, the decree holder was directed to furnish a draft
sale deed on the requisite document sheets for approval.
Further direction was issued to provide additional documents to
establish that the scheduled property stands in the name of the
judgment debtor.
Bruhut Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
HC-KAR
5. Thereafter, it appears that the Executing Court, by
the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, observed as follows:
"The Counsel for the Decree Holder (DHR) has filed
a memo along with the draft sale deed and supporting
documents.
The Counsel for the Judgment Debtor has filed an
application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking to recall the order dated
03.12.2024, wherein this Court directed the DHR to
furnish the draft sale deed.
In support of the application, the Counsel for the
JDR has produced a copy of the order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 32589/2018,
dated 12.11.2024. In the said order, the Hon'ble High
Court has categorically held that no directions could be
issued to Respondent No. 3 who is the JDR in the present
proceedings until the disposal of W.A. No. 26/2024.
Given the pendency of W.A. No. 26/2024 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, particularly
concerning the issue of plan sanction, this Court is of the
considered view that it would be just and proper to recall
the order dated 03.12.2024.
Accordingly, the application filed by the JDR is
allowed, and the order dated 03.12.2024 is hereby
recalled.
Await orders in W.A. No. 26/2024, by 05.02.2025."
6. It is evident from perusal of the impugned order
that the learned Counsel for the judgment debtor had produced
a copy of the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.32589/2018 in which it was observed that no directions
could be issued to respondent No.3 therein who is the
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
HC-KAR
judgment debtor in the present proceedings until the disposal
of W.A.No.26/2024. The Executing Court was of the considered
view that given the pendency of W.A.No.26/2024 particularly
concerning the issue of plan sanction, it would be just and
proper to recall the previous order of 03.12.2024. Accordingly
the application filed by the judgment debtor was allowed and
the order of 03.12.2024 was recalled. Finally the Court has
directed that the orders in W.A.No.26/2024 be awaited.
7. The order of 12.11.2024 is passed in
W.P.No.32589/2018 is on record, which reads as under:
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
a. Issue a Writ, Order or Directions in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondents to
consider the representation dated 26.12.2016
and 25.10.2017 vide Annexure-A and B and
execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of
the Petitioner in respect of the Scheduled Site;
b. Issue any other appropriate Writ, Order or
Directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that
until a plan is sanctioned by the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA), no allotment could
be made and the issue regarding the plan sanction
was pending in WA No.26 of 2024.
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner would be filling an impleading application
in the said pending proceedings.
4. If that be so, since no order can be passed in the
present petition which is for mandamus until WA
No.26 of 2024 is disposed and until disposed
favourably to the respondent No.3, no direction
could be issued to respondent No.3.
5. With the above observation, the petition stands
disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to
once again approach this Court after the disposal of
WA No. 26 of 2024."
8. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner
is that the possession of the property in dispute was handed
over to the petitioner well before the order passed in
W.P.No.40994/2022. The entire sale consideration has also
been paid long time back. Therefore, there is no option for the
judgment debtor but to execute the sale deed in favour of the
decree holder/petitioner. It is stated that in the order passed in
W.P.No.40994/2002, only prohibition is with regard to sites
that are to be newly allotted and not with regard to sites that
are already allotted and for which possession has been
delivered. It has also been stated that similarly situated
petitioners have filed various petitions in which orders have
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
HC-KAR
been issued by the Court permitting the sale deeds to be
executed. However, no such order passed by the High Court
has been filed in this petition.
9. Be that as it may, the issue concerns sanctioning of
the layout plan in which the site of the petitioner is situated.
Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.32589/2018 is none other than
petitioner in this petition who is the judgment debtor. It is but
obvious and it is also admitted to the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that without sanction of a layout plan, there can be
no sanctioned building plan. Moreover, the site layout plan that
may be ultimately sanctioned by the BDA may or may not
contain alterations in the roads, amenities and plot dimensions.
All this cannot be foreseen at this stage. Therefore, it is also in
the interest of the petitioner that the lay out plan be first
sanctioned by the BDA before the award is executed.
10. This Court is in respectful agreement with the order
dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge in
W.P.No.32589/2018. In this view of the matter, this Court find
that the impugned order of the Executing Court dated
NC: 2026:KHC:10864
HC-KAR
20.12.2024 is justified. The petitioner must await the outcome
of W.A.No.26/2024.
11. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner
states that he may be permitted to get himself impleaded in
W.A.No.26/2024. Though I am not inclined to issue any such
direction, it is, however, always open for the petitioner to move
any lawful application before the Court as advised.
12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court find no reason
to interfere in the impugned order passed by the XXVII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dated
20.12.2024 in Execution petition No.1606/2021 and this
petition is therefore dismissed.
The Registry of this Court is directed to communicate this
order to the concerned trial Courts within fifteen days from
today so that it is kept on the record.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
KSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
