MUNINARASAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition coming on for orders on the application seeking vacating the order of stay, the petition is heard for final disposal. The facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the short question that would arise for consideration in the present writ petition is whether respondent no. 2 had locus standi to challenge the order of regrant made in favour of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. He would submit that admittedly, the sale deed in favour of respondent no. 2 was after the order of grant was set aside in appeal in MA 57/1995. Therefore, respondent no. 2 had no right or interest, as the sale deed, if any, in respect of the land in question was rendered a nullity. It is further pointed out that the second sale by M/s. Scott India Private Limited in favour of respondent no. 2 was made after the regrant order dated 11.10.1990 was set aside in appeal as on 11.8.1997. Therefore, respondents 4 and 5 did not have any exclusive right to convey the property and any title derived by respondent no. 2 under the sale deed was imperfect and invalid. Hence, respondent no. 2 would have no vested right to prefer an appeal to challenge the order of regrant. Yet another reason to hold that the sale deed was null and void is in view of the public policy declared by the Government of Karnataka, as per Notification dated 14.2.1994, wherein it was declared that any registration of a sale deed in violation of the KVOA Act was declared to be void. Therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 2 by M/s. Scott India Private Limited was void. It is also contended that in effect, the regrant order, made in favour of the petitioner along with respondents 4 and 5, is the regrant order which is validly made, as any earlier regrant was invalid for non-joinder of the petitioner and therefore, the non-alienation period would run from the date the order of regrant is made in favour of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, namely, 5.2.2007 and therefore, the sale would also run counter to the prohibition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years from the date of regrant. For all the above reasons, the appeal was not maintainable as respondent no. 2 had no locus standi to question the order of regrant made.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate Shri P. S. Rajagopal appearing for the counsel for Respondent No. 6 would contend that the present petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons: