TOWNSHIP ENTERPRISES BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE owners of the agricultural lands in Sy. No. 39/2 measuring 18 guntas of Yelahanka Amanikere Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore north Taluk, offered the said property for sale. The petitioner, a non-agriculturist, agreed to purchase the lands, provided it secured the permission to divert the lands for use to residential purpose by the authorities, under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 (for short, 'revenue Act' ). The parties executed an agreement to sell, dated 28-3-2003, incorporating the aforesaid condition together with a stipulation that the subject-matter of conveyance would be converted land, the possession of which, is to deliver on execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. The landowners and the petitioner, on presenting the agreement to sell for registration, the 2nd respondent, by an order dated 28-3-2003, Annexure-B refused registration on the ground that registration of such a document was declared to be opposed to public policy by the Government Notification No. RD 56 MUNOSA 99, dated 20-5-1999, Annexure-A. Hence, this writ petition seeking to quash the notification Annexure-A insofar as it declares the registration of the agreement to sell, without delivery of possession of agricultural lands to non-agriculturist, as opposed to public policy and to quash the order dated 28-3-2003, Annexure-B of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the agreement to sell, Annexure-C.

(2.) PETITION is opposed by the respondents by filing their statement of objections dated 26-5-2004, inter alia, contending that the agreement to sell agricultural lands, to a non-agriculturist, without the permission from the authorities under the Revenue Act, is declared as being opposed to public policy by the Government notification dated 20-5-1999, annexure-A issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'registration Act' ). In addition, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal, under Section 72 of the Registration Act, before the District Registrar.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, the question for decision-making in this writ petition is, whether the declaration of registration of an agreement to sell between the landowner and a non-agriculturist, without delivery of possession of the agricultural lands, in terms of the Government Notification (Circular-I) bearing No. RD 56 MUNOSA 99, dated 20-5-1999, as being opposed to public policy, is valid and legal?