ARATTUKULAM DEVELOPERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, approached the 3rd respondent-Grama Panchayat seeking registration of khatha on the basis of the registered sale deed dtd. 25/10/2014 and a rectification deed dtd. 14/6/2021. However, the Panchayat Development Officer of the Grama Panchayat issued the impugned endorsement dtd. 2/7/2021 at Annexure-G stating that there is a suit pending in O.S.No.106/2021 in respect of the property in question and therefore, the khatha cannot be registered.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.M.Chandra Shekhar, appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit in O.S.No.106/2021 is filed by the 4th respondent seeking a decree of permanent injunction and there is no declaration sought. The petitioner has approached the Grama Panchayat on the basis of a registered instrument. The Panchayat Development Officer could not have declined to register the khatha since the law on the point would be that if a person acquires title over an immovable property under a registered instrument, then as a matter of right the purchaser is entitled to have the khatha registered or transferred in his/her name. If there is any objection sought to be raised at the hands of the 4th respondent, then an endorsement should be issued to the 4th respondent directing him to get a declaration of title and such an endorsement could not have been issued to the petitioner who is seeking registration of khatha in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent seeks to submit that although the property in question is said to have been converted from agricultural purposes to non- agricultural purpose by an order dtd. 29/8/2013 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, nevertheless, there has been some discrepancies in the survey numbers and the boundaries. Therefore, the 4th respondent has already filed a suit in O.S.No.106/2021 which is pending consideration. Learned Counsel would further submit that the suit will be converted to a suit for a declaration.