- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43125 WP No. 58345 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 58345 OF 2016 (GM-KSFC) BETWEEN: NAWAZ BRICK INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SAFFIR S/O. KASIM BAIG AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS JAWALAGONDANAHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 511, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION NEAR BASAVESHWARA THEATRE CHITRADURGA - 577 511 2. G.R. RAGHU S/O. G.N. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O. BALAJI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, TUMKURU - 572 102. 3. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION KSFC BHAVAN, NO.1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052 4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR HIRIYUR TALU, HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA - 577 511, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3 SRI. S. SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43125 WP No. 58345 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE DEED DATED 28.03.2007 EXECUTED BY R-1 IN FAVOUR OF R-2 REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF SUB- REGISTRAR, HIRIYURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT VIDE BOOK NO.1, DOCUMENT NO.HYR-1-03753-2006-07, C.D.NO.HYRD20 AT ANNEX-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the Sale Deed dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure-G) executed by Respondent No.1- Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSFC') in favour of Respondent No.2. 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner had availed loan of Rs.15,95,000/- from KSFC for the purpose of developing Brick Industry. It is further stated that the entire Industry was disturbed on account of lightning and continuous rain and therefore, the petitioner was not able to continue the Brick Industry business. It is also stated that, Respondent No.2 has filed the Suit for physical possession of schedule property in O.S.No.210/15 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Hiriyur and at that juncture, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43125 WP No. 58345 of 2016 petitioner came to know about the fact that Respondent No.1 has called for the Tender to sell the schedule property as per the paper publication in 'Vijaya Karnataka', dated 29.11.2006 and the Sale Deed has been executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 28.03.2007. Hence, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri.Jayaprakash Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 3 and Sri S.Shivananda, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 4. Sri.Jayaprakash Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the proceedings in O.S.No.210/2015, contended that, no notice was issued by Respondent No.1 before calling for Tender and to execute the Registered Sale Deed in favour of Respondent No.2 and the petitioner came to know only in the aforementioned proceedings and fair opportunity has not been extended to the petitioner to proceed for 'One Time Settlement" and other benefits to protect the interest of the Borrower. Therefore, it is contended by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43125 WP No. 58345 of 2016 learned counsel for the petitioner that, the impugned Registered Sale Deed made by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 requires to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Annexure-J wherein it is clearly stated that, Respondent No.1 before creating third party rights in respect of the subject matter of the land, ought to have issued notice as required under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and therefore, it is contended that, in the absence of the same, the Sale Deed made in favour of Respondent No.2 requires to be set aside in this writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 and 3, invited the attention of the Court to the proceedings in Misc.Petition No.50/2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, filed under Section 31 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 to enforce the liability to the extent of Rs.33,83,630/- due as on 10.09.2003 and submitted that, the said petition came to be allowed and pursuant to the same, an opportunity was extended to the petitioner for 'One Time Settlement' as per Annexure-C and even for that also, the petitioner has not come - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43125 WP No. 58345 of 2016 forward to clear the due amount in favour of Respondent No.1 and as such, the Public Notice came to be issued in the 'Vijaya Karnataka' Newspaper on 29.11.2006 calling for Bidders to purchase the schedule property, and thereafter, steps have been taken to take possession of the property as per the Mahazar dated 06.06.2001 and therefore, it is contented by the learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 3 that, as the petitioner herein is a Chronic Defaulter and suffered an Order under Section 31 of the KSFC Act, 1951 and therefore, the petition does not survive for consideration. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 and 3, by inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure-R2, submitted that, valuation has been made with regard to the sale of the schedule property is concerned and thereafter Public Notice has been issued as per Annexure-R3 and therefore, it is contented that, the writ petition does not survive for consideration. 7. Per contra, Sri.S.Shivananda, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2- Auction Purchaser submitted that, since the Sale Deed has been executed during 2007 and the petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43125 WP No. 58345 of 2016 is filed during 2016, Writ Petition does not survive for consideration on delay and laches and the same is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the writ papers, it would indicate as per Annexure-J that, the petitioner herein had availed loan for the purpose of improving the Brick Industry and thereafter, he became a defaulter and in this regard, Notices have been exchanged between the petitioner and the KSFC. It is also forthcoming from the Order dated 01.02.2010 in Miscellaneous Petition No.50 of 2003 (Annexure-R1), annexed to the Statement of Objections filed by the KSFC, wherein KSFC has initiated Proceedings under Section 31 of the KSFC Act, 1951 against the petitioner herein and the said petition came to be allowed by the Competent Court on 01.02.2010, which has reached finality and the petitioner herein has not challenged the same. Further, as per Annexure-R2, valuation has been made with regard to the sale of the schedule property is concerned and thereafter, only the Public Notice has been issued to sell the schedule property on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43125 WP No. 58345 of 2016 'AS IS WHERE BASIS' as per Annexure-R3. That apart, an opportunity has been extended to the petitioner as per Annexure-R4 to participate in the Bid as well as to close the Account by satisfying the claim made by the Respondent No.1. 9. In that view of the matter, taking into account the factual aspects on record, as the Schedule Property has been sold as per the Registered Sale deed dated 28.03.2007 at Annexure-G to the writ petition in favour of Respondent No.2 and, as the same is made pursuant to the Order passed by the Competent Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.50/2003 and further, as it is not disputed that the Suit Schedule Property has been sold as per the Mahazar conducted on 06.06.2001, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27