- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42940 WP No. 31964 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 31964 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: S. CHAMPAVATHI W/O LATE. CHANDRASHEKAR JOIS RETIRED EMPLOYEE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.7 SRIRAMA VASANTHA VALLABHANAGARA GROUND FLOOR, NEAR SUGUNA HP GAS BENGALURU - 560 061. NOW R/O. SRI. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA KRUPA D.NO.116, JAYANAGARA, 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI: S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S. BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES SAGARA SUB-DIVISION SAGARA - 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42940 WP No. 31964 of 2025 AND LOAN RECOVERY OFFICER RULE-441, THE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577201. 4. THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED HARAGUVALLI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 447 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO 3, SRI:DAYANAND S PATIL, ADV FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 08.09.2025 IN NO.M.R-25/KALAM 69/SAMKHYE-2/16-17 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-X TO THE WRIT PETITION. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE HON'BLE COURT DEEMS IT PROPER IN THE ATTENDANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari and to quash the sale notice dated 08.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3, which is produced as per Annexure-X. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42940 WP No. 31964 of 2025 2. Heard Sri S V Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Dayanand S Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that her deceased husband is said to have misappropriated a sum of money while he was in service with respondent No.4. Surcharge proceedings was initiated before respondent No.2 who passed the award as per Annexure-J. As per Annexure-J, amount of Rs.19,45,754/- with interest at 18% p.a. was ordered to be recovered from the original respondent i.e., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42940 WP No. 31964 of 2025 deceased husband of the petitioner, by selling movable and immovable properties belonging to him. 5. It is stated that respondent No.4 has got the property belonging to the petitioner for sale to satisfy the award. At that time, the petitioner approached KAT by preferring an appeal. KAT passed an order as per Annexure-G allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 105(1)(e) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The surcharge application dated 24.08.2017 was set aside. Consequently, the attachment before judgment as ordered by respondent No.1 herein in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner was vacated. It is stated that the very same property referred to in Annexure-G by KAT is again brought for sale and the sale notice as per Annexure-X was issued. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to submit the affidavit of the petitioner highlighting details of the property inherited by her from her deceased husband. Pursuant to the same, the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner is filed, according to which, neither the petitioner nor her daughters have inherited either movable or immovable properties from the deceased husband of the petitioner and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42940 WP No. 31964 of 2025 property in question is self acquired property of the petitioner from her salary income as she was working in the judicial department. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 fairly concedes that there are enough material to show that the property in question belongs to the petitioner and the same was not inherited by her from her deceased husband. However, he contends that there is efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act. When admittedly, the property is self acquired property of the petitioner and there is absolutely no material to contend that the property in question was inherited by the petitioner through her deceased husband, no purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act. Hence, the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 is to be rejected. 8. In view of the discussions held above, the property in question belonging to the petitioner is self acquired property and not inherited by her deceased husband, which is admitted by respondent No.4, I am of the opinion that the property - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42940 WP No. 31964 of 2025 could not have been brought for sale. As per Annexure-J, the amount in question is to be recovered from the property belonging to the original respondent who is none other than the deceased husband of the petitioner and the order attaching the very same property was set aside by KAT as per Annexure-G, which has reached finality, since respondent No.4 has not challenged the same. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought. Accordingly, I proceed to pas the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The sale notice dated 08.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-X is hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent No.4 is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, if it is found that the contents of affidavit dated 28.10.2025 is proved to be false. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25