- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51079 WP No. 19015 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 19015 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: UDAYAKUMAR BHANDARY S/O SANJEEVA BHANDARY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SHEDDY HAJMAL, ADAPADY VILLAGE, MUDASHEDDU, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575 001 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI A MANJUNATHA BHANDARY, S/O LATE K SANJIVA BHANDARY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMANE, MOODHUSHEDDE POST AND VILLAGE, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51079 WP No. 19015 of 2017 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALORE-560 009 3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575 001 4. SUB REGISTRAR MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575 001 5. MEMBER SECRETARY (BOOMI UPOR) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.2.2017 ISSUED BY R-4 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALSO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 19.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT VIDE ANNEX- B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51079 WP No. 19015 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 22.02.2017 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A and to quash the notification dated 19.12.2011 passed in No.KAN.E/137/MUNOSA/2011 by the State Government as per Annexure-B and sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to register the Sale Deed produced by the petitioner as per Annexure-C. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had purchased the land measuring, in all, 6 acres 98 cents in Sy.No.29/8, Sy.No.29/12, new Sy.No.99/16 (old Sy.No.99/2), new Sy.No.99/15 (old Sy.No.99/2) and new Sy.No.29/14 (old Sy.No.29/9) situated at Adyapady Village, Mangaluru Taluk. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner presented the draft sale deed for registration before respondent No.4 along with requisite forms. At that time, respondent No.4, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51079 WP No. 19015 of 2017 instead of registering the sale deed, issued an endorsement as per Annexure-'A' and informed the petitioner to produce the 11E sketch in view of the government notification as per Annexure-'B'. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G. Ramachar and Another vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2016 SCC Online Kar 8731, respondent No.4 ought not to have insisted for the sketch in Form No.11E. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate by placing the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.1087/2025 dated 21.08.2025 submits that, in view of the pendency of the special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (C) No.12351/2021, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51079 WP No. 19015 of 2017 "6. At this stage, the learned counsel submit that the appellants have submitted 11E sketches in respect of several portions of the subject land. Clearly, this Court is not required to make any observations in this regard, as there is no ambiguity in the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has expressly directed that, subject to the appellants furnishing the 11E sketch, the original sale deeds set out in 'Schedule I' of the writ petition would be released. 7. We also consider it apposite to clarify that in the event the appellants do not furnish the 11E sketch and stand by their contention that the same is not necessary, the respondents would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the sale deeds, which are subject matter of the writ petition, as well. This observation would obviously be relevant if the appellants do not furnish the 11E sketch as directed. In the event the appellants furnish the 11E sketches as required, the respondents shall abide by the directions of the learned Single Judge, as set out in the impugned order." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51079 WP No. 19015 of 2017 6. I have perused the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 7. In view of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1087/2025, the question involved in this writ petition is no more res-integra. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the findings of the Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition No.1087/2025. The petitioner is at liberty to produce 11E sketch. Upon producing the 11E sketch or after disposal of SLP as stated supra, respondent No.4 shall register the document produced by the petitioner. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21