IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.54038-54040 OF 2017(GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN:
Mr. K. Maregowda, S/o Mr. Nagaraj Gowda, Aged about 51 years, R/at Nittur Village, Siruguppa Taluk, Bellary District – 583 122.
(By Sri. I. S. Devaiah, Advocate for Sri. Devaraj K.S, Advocate) AND:
1. The District Registrar, Basavanagudi Registration District, B.M.T.C building, 2nd floor, Srividyanagar, Hosakerehalli, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 085.
2. Senior Sub-Registrar Banashankari, Kanakapura Main Road, A.P.M.C Compound, Banashankari, Bengaluru – 560 070.
… Petitioner … Respondents (By Smt. H. C. Kavitha, HCGP for R1 and R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the R-2 vide Annexure-A, quash the Memorandum dated 14.11.2017 issued by the R-1 vide Annexure-F and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.I.S.Devaiah, learned counsel for Sri.K.S.Devaraj learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.1/2019, an application for early hearing. For the reasons assigned in the application duly supported with the affidavit, petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the District Registrar, which has been communicated to the petitioner by the Senior Sub-Registrar vide order dated 17.11.2017.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that petitioner has executed Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of sale on 16.06.2016. The aforesaid document was presented for registration before the Deputy Registrar on 16.06.2016 itself. The prospective purchasers had admitted the execution of the aforesaid document. However, the petitioner, who is the owner of the property in question, did not remain present. The Deputy Registrar thereafter, by an order dated 14.11.2017, has refused to register the document on the ground that the petitioner was not present on the date when the document was presented for registration.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the statutory requirements as provided under the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) and shall remain present before the Senior Sub- Registrar on such date as this Court may fix and as such, the Senior Sub-Registrar be directed to register the aforesaid document.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for respondents submits that in case the petitioner complies with the requirements and all the terms as prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the Senior Sub-Registrar shall perform his statutory duty.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, that in case petitioner appears along with the document, namely, the Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of sale deed dated 16.06.2016 before the Senior Sub-Registrar on 05.02.2019 and fulfills all the conditions laid down under the Act and the Rules, the Senior Sub-Registrar after careful scrutiny of the same shall proceed to take action in accordance with law for registration of documents.
Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-