- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29576 WP No. 14826 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14826 OF 2020 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/A HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, YADALAKDAKU POST SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJA B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572102 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHYATH, TUMKUR DISTRICT AT TUMKUR-572102 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29576 WP No. 14826 of 2020 4. THE PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SIRA TALUK PANCHAYATH SIRA-572137 5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION AT MADHUGIRI TUMKUR-572102 6. THE PRESIDENT MILK PRODUCERS MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HOSAHALLI, HULIKUNTE HOBLI YADALADAKU POST, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137 REP. BY THE ADMINISTRATOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 5 AND 6; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTION ORDER 08.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHICH IS OBTAINED FRAUDULENTLY BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT PRESIDENT WHICH ILLEGAL AND EFFECTED AGAINST THE LAW PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 08.07.2020 passed by the respondent No.5 approving the construction of a building to house the Milk Producers Mahila - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29576 WP No. 14826 of 2020 Cooperative Society at Hosahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District (respondent No.6). 2. The petitioners contend that they are the members of the respondent No.6. They claimed that the erstwhile President of respondent No.6 had entered into an agreement of sale dated 25.08.2018 to buy a property measuring 2.08 guntas in Sy.No.24/2 which lay adjacent to his house and situated outside the gramatana limits. The petitioners contend that the erstwhile president of respondent No.6 based on such an agreement of sale, had managed to get the property assessed in the name of respondent No.6 in the records of Panchayath and obtained a sanction to construct a building on the aforesaid property for the respondent No.6. The respondent No.5 in terms of the order dated 08.07.2020 had granted approval enabling the respondent No.6 to construct a building over the aforesaid property at a cost of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The petitioner contends that under the agreement of sale referred above, the possession of the property was not delivered. Nonetheless, the erstwhile president of the respondent No.6 had managed to obtain an approval from the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29576 WP No. 14826 of 2020 respondent No.5 for construction of the building. The petitioner contends that this is done by the respondent No.5 to embezzle the funds of respondent No.6 and also to usurp the property after the building is constructed thereon. The petitioners therefore submit that the respondent No.5 before granting the administrative approval must have looked into the question whether the construction sought to be put up on the property is owned by the respondent No.6 or not. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the approval for construction of the building was granted by the respondent No.5 based on the assertions made by the respondent No.6 that the property where the construction was to be put up belonged to respondent No.6 and that the funds for construction was sourced from various institutions. Therefore, he contends that the respondent No.5 did not go into the question whether the property where the construction is sought to be put up is owned by the respondent No.6 or not. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the respondent No.6 is represented by an administrator and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29576 WP No. 14826 of 2020 hence the administrator would take necessary steps to protect the interest of respondent No.6. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 6. It appears from the records placed along with the writ petition that the erstwhile President of respondent No.6 had entered into an agreement of sale dated 25.08.2018 with Sri. H.R.Prakash agreeing to purchase 2.08 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/2 of Hosahalli village, Sira Taluk, Tumkur district for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,95,000/- of which, the erstwhile president of respondent No.6 had paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- and balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on the date of registration of deed of absolute sale. It also shows that possession of the property agreed to be sold was not delivered under the agreement. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.5 granting approval for the proposal of respondent No.6 to construct a building thereon shows that the respondent No.5 did not really apply his mind to the question - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29576 WP No. 14826 of 2020 whether the property where the respondent No.6 intended to put up construction belonged to the respondent No.6 or not. On the contrary, the respondent No.5 proceeded on the assumption that the property belonged to the respondent No.6. 7. Having regard to the fact that the possession of the property was not delivered under the agreement of sale and there is no conclusion of transaction between the respondent No.6 and the owner of the property, it is unsafe for construction to be put up over the property which does not belong to the respondent No.6, as this may result in litigation and deprive the use of the building by the members of respondent No.6. 8. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.5 is bound to revisit to the proposal sent by the respondent No.6 and reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned administrative proposal bearing No.Sani33/yojane/K.Ni/30/2020-21 dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure -H) passed by the respondent No.5 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.5 who shall consider - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29576 WP No. 14826 of 2020 the observations made herein above and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47