B.N. SRIDHAR, S/O LATE B.R. NAGARAJARAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, GRAM PANCHAYATH KACHIGHATTA, REP. BY ITS SECRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.2 though served has remained unrepresented.