High Court Karnataka High Court

Pyramid Developer vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Pyramid Developer vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 October, 2009
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
WP No.6-4058 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBEA1~3\~~-ifi2'§)V»'f:)'__§'.j'  

BEFORE

THE I~ION'BLE DRJUSTICE B§;i§:;AI:1*11Av2§*rs.z;L@g ; 

WRIT PETITION No.64»O58/240-Q19'~--(GM§§§;ZRN}   %k

BETWEEN :

Pyramid Developer,  --

Represented by its Farther', "  1 _   '

Sri Amn, S / o KaHappa.._KVhi1}e1<a;f, "

Age 40 years,_  _    :

Residing at N.Q.5§S;'3T¢ 1arie;V   " 

Shivajinagar, 'B.e1ga3'1;.-m'-5--9VOO.10_.   ' ...PETITIONER

(By Sr3'j. C¥.'B; Adfiocare] 

AND:A

1. Tléleusuperiritenvdent of Police,

 A Karfiataka Lokajfiiktha,
'  ' 'B.e1gaum*..,_  _

 ; :;I"'he 

B.e1gg;u;1'_1  ...RESPONDENTS

‘r*(13yLsri.eeJ’agadish Patil, Advocate for R1
_ ‘Sari. R.K.Hatti, HCGP for R2)

WP No.64058 of 2009

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quashing”»the
direction/letter dated 04.03.2009 issued -7_b”y.__”‘~«_the

Superintendent of Police, Karnataka L0}:ayu’ki;__a,
Belgaum as per Annexure–A and declare’ thgate-“thiet 0′ ‘
directions issued not to register the ._V0id’
and without jurisdiction; and to quash the enldorsemient.
dated 10.06.2009 issued by the} ‘Sub-‘Regist_rar,.i

Belgaum, produced at AnneXure~!B._

This writ petition comi.ni’g.,_gon for. ‘day, 0

the Court made the following:

The ijjthisiwélourt praying for
quashing__th’e .:0V45_.Ci3.20O9 at Annexure-A
issued:’1.i,b&-. respondent No.2 not to

register the and also to quash the

endeifsericient ida-ted____é1v0.06.2009 at Annexure-B issued

by*respv0nde«;dtv No.2

0 2.i.__Th-edhrief facts of the case leading to filing of the

Vijw.rit_petition may be stated as under:-

WP N0.64058 of 2009

The petitioner being the owner of CT S No.4877 / 29

and CTS No/-1877/30, has constructed second

both the premises, after obtaining V’

permission. He intended to sellVthe—seccf4nd_ifio:o4rVto.’jthe–.A

buyer and sale deed was presented in faV0’ur«.o”fjthe’._

vendor before respondentf’No.2§Sub-=Regis’trér ‘ for V

registration. But, he refusedinito thfle’s’a1e’f:deed on
the ground that there that at
Annexure–A of
Police, iéeilgeum, not to register
the sa:.edeediin tneiiane bearing Sy.No.1387.
Since have been formed from

Sy. ._th’edSu.b–R’egistrar has refused to register

ffl”thVe”‘ss1ie”fde’ed_ in of the vendor and in that regard

,..y1e~«.11aisvvgi*.re11 ,At€:i,IT1″€1’ld.OI’S€II1t’3I’1t at Annexure–B. Therefore,

the””peti._tioner is before this Court praying for quashing

impugned direction dated 04.03.2009 given by

i.’_’revspo’ndent No.1 at Annexure~A and the endorsement

‘;’3Lr1i’1’eX1ire–i3~..A

WP No.64058 of 2009

dated 10.06.2009 issued by respondent No.2p–___Sub–

Registrar at anneXure–‘B’.

3. Though the petition is iisted for ‘

the arguments for final disposal.»

4. Learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 has no .gix;e:’v.direetion to it

respondent No .2–Subv-i?egistrar to register ‘sale deed
pertaining to the plots :’oL;.t.ii”off:.iSy_.No.1387 and

the direction§.vissi1ed is .;w:i.thoii’tii{_a1.1thfority of iaw and

excessioiii No.2 in obedience of
the direction of No.1, he has refused to

registerthe”saflledeed and issued the endorsement at

counsei appearing for respondent No.1

su’o.mitsv.thia;t the investigation is going on with reference

the disproportionate sources of income pertaining to

it «Ease of Sri. II).B.Naik, who was the Chief Executive

WP No.64058 of 2009

respondent No.1 and the endorsement dated
10.06.2009 at Annexure-~B on the file of respo0r1«de~nt

No.2 are quashed.

Granted three Weeks time ….1.:o_ the’Wiear_r_;.e0d’ 0″

Court Government Pieader to fife’ n}i._e01n:o of ‘appgax¥an’&1ei

for respondent No.2.

Kms*    _  V