ORDER
1. The petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-H, dated 23-6-1995 passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner granting permission to respondents 3 to 5 for alienating 2 acres, 14 guntas of land in Sy. No. 37 of Thonachanakuppe Village of Nelamangala Hobli on certain grounds. The facts and the grounds raised as also the contentions urged need not be traversed because the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on several grounds.
2. In paragraph 2 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of 4th respondent it is stated that after obtaining permission under the impugned order for alienating the land in question, respondents 3 to 5 executed absolute sale deed in favour of the purchaser, K.M. Ranganna on 21-7-1995. It is further stated that the petitioner and his son Nagaraju are consenting witnesses and the relevant portion of the recitals in the sale deed has been extracted. It is further stated that the petitioner was paid major sale consideration and the petitioner by suppressing all these facts has filed this writ petition.
3. From the statements made in the counter filed on behalf of 4th respondent it is clear that petitioner was aware of the sale of the land in favour of K.M. Ranganna as far back as in the year 1995 itself. He has not denied the sale deed, copy of which is produced as Annexure-R1. He has also not denied that he was a consenting party to the said sale deed. But the petitioner has failed to bring the said fact to the notice of this Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of an important fact.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition without impleading the purchaser K.M. Ranganna. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
5. The petitioner has not challenged the sale deed executed by respondents 3 to 5 obviously because he and his son were consenting witnesses for the same. As long as the sale deed is not annulled or declared void by the competent Civil Court, petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief from this Court. Virtually, the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. The petitioner being a party to the sale deed in question, he has no locus standi to file this writ petition seeking to quash the permission granted for alienation of the land. On the basis of the permission granted the sale deed was executed by respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioner and his son are consenting witnesses to the said sale deed. That being the position, the petitioner is estopped from seeking the relief sought for in this writ petition.
7. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed for yet another reason. The impugned order has become superfluous consequent upon execution of the sale deed. The impugned order shall be treated as having become effective and the same cannot be quashed in the absence of the purchaser as his rights accrued under the sale deed would be affected.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.