- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 29770 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE RAMAPURA GULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2558A, 16TH 'D' MAIN ROAD, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 008 SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, MAHAMANDALA LTD., NO.132, 2ND FLOOR, KH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027 3. M/S. SRI LAKSHMI MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3/4, E.A.T. STREET, GANDHIBAZAR, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 4. SMT. ROOPA J KINI W/O U JEEVANANDA KINI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.296/1, 1ST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, W.O.C. ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086 AND NO. 3 AND 4 ARE ALSO R/AT M/S GOWRI ENTERPRISES, NO.419, IST FLOOR, 14TH 'A' CROSS, 20TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010 5. SRI SAVITHRI A BHAT W/O SRI ANANTHA BHAT, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.85, 7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, SHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH .D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 2 SRI. JEEVAN .K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 R4 - H/S - V/O DT.27/10/2025, R5 - SD/-) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE - A, IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2024, COP APPEAL NO. 276/2024 PASSED BY KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN RESPECT OF IA NO. 3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER REGULATION 40 (A) OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLANT TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS, DISMISSING THE SAID APPLICATION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY APPEAL ALSO DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND RESTORE IT TO THE ORIGINAL POSSESSION. AND QUASH THE ANNEXURE -B, THE NOTICE DATED 05.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER, IN WHICH THERE IS A REFERENCE WITH REGARD TO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 TAKE POSSESSION BEARING NO.SLAMSBN/267/2024-25 DTD. 05.09.2024 OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO. 72 16TH B MAIN ROAD KODIHALLI, HAL 2ND STAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI BBMP WARD NO. 74 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SAYING THAT C. MISC NO. 50492/2022, FILED BY THE R-3 BANK AGAINST R-4 AND 5 IN WHICH ALSO PETITIONER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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, to quash the notice dated 05.09.2024 issued by respondent No.3-Bank, produced as per Annexure-B. 2. Heard Sri. Narayana Swamy P.M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. Jeevan K. learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the only point would arise for consideration is: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 "Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to quash the Notice dated 05.09.2024 issued by respondent No.3-Bank, produced as per Annexure- B?" My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. The petitioner is impugning the notice dated 05.09.2024 produced as per Annexure-B issued by respondent No.3. As per this notice, the petitioner is notified that one U.Jeevananda Kini had mortgaged site No.72, 16th B Main Road, Kodihalli, HAL 2nd Stage, Varthur Hobli, BBMP Ward No.74, Bangalore South, Taluk measuring East to West 55 feet, North to South 80 feet totally measuring 4,400 square feet with the boundaries mentioned therein. It is also stated that for the purpose of getting possession of the property, the proceedings were initiated and got an order in that regard with police help. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to have his say in the matter and notifying that the physical possession of the property will be taken by the Bank. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 5. On service of notice-Annexure-B, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that, he never mortgaged the property referred to in the notice. He produced Annexure-H Sale Deed dated 22.09.2001 executed by one G.Muniyappa in favour of U.Jeevananda Kini referred to in Annexure-B. As per this sale deed, U.Jeevananda Kini purchased the piece and parcel of the property bearing Corporation katha No.72, situated at 16th D Main Road, Division No.74, Kodihalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 4,400 square feet, with the boundaries mentioned therein. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the alleged Sale Deed dated 22.09.2001 Annexure-H where the vendor has stated that, he is the sole and absolute owner of the Property bearing Sy.No.202/1, New Corporation Katha No.72, Division No.74, situated at Kodihalli village, Vartur Hobli, HASB area, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 80/55 feet as he acquired the same under the registered Sale Deed dated 29.01.1971 executed by one G.Muniyappa. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 7. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.4 who deposited the Title Deeds under the Memorandum of Deposit has remained absent. 8. The respondent Bank is placing reliance on the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 04.10.2001, produced as per Annexure-J. As per this document, one Smt. Roopa Kini, wife of U.J. Kini mortgaged the property bearing Corporation Katha No.72, situated at 16th B Main Road, Division No.74, Kodihalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 4,400 square feet. In deposit of Title Deeds Annexure-J, Smt.Roopa Kini has never stated as to how she acquired the property, when the Sale Deed Annexure-H stands in the name of U.Jeevananda Kini. It is stated by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that, Roopa Kini is none other than the wife of U. Jeevananda Kini. Even if the said submission is to be accepted, why U. Jeevananda Kini has not executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, remains unanswered. Similarly, what is the right of Smt.Roopa Kini to mortgage the property by deposit of Title Deeds also remains unanswered. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in any of the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3. However, Annexure-B notice is addressed to the petitioner stating that the property which is in his possession was taken over as per the order passed by the Court in the proceedings which was initiated by respondent No.3. Admittedly, the petitioner had never mortgaged any property. He was not a party in any of the proceedings. 10. The Sale Deed pertaining to the petitioner executed by BDA dated 12.04.2002 is produced as per Annexure-C. As per this document, property in Sy.No.204/2, Kodihalli, HAL 2nd Stage, measuring 12.20 meters East to West, and 17.30 and 17.50/2 North to South, totally 212.28 square meters, bearing site No.2558/A with the boundaries mentioned therein sold in favour of the petitioner. If Annexure-C Sale Deed dated 12.04.2002 is taken into consideration in light of the Sale Deed Annexure-H dated 22.09.2001 and the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner executed by BDA refers to the site formed in Sy.No.204/2 of Kodihalli village, whereas the site formed in Sy.No.202/1 of Kodihalli village was purchased by one U. Jeevananda Kini under Annexure-H. Under such circumstances, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 I find considerable force in the contention taken by the petitioner to seek quashing of the notice Annexure-B. 11. Interestingly, respondent No.3 has no scrap of paper to establish atleast prima facie, as claimed over the property covered under the Sale Deed Annexure-C executed by BDA in favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that in view of Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act'), the petitioner must approach DRT for redressal of his grievance and therefore this Court cannot grant any relief. Even though Section 17 of SARFAESI Act refers to any person including the borrower, who is aggrieved by the measures taken by the secured creditors, as per Sub Section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner cannot be compelled to approach DRT when respondent No.3 has not placed prima facie materials to establish its claim over the property in question while addressing the notice-Annexure- B to the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43088 WP No. 29770 of 2024 answer as to why the petitioner who never mortgaged any property as owner of the property referred to in Annexure-C Sale Deed is issued the notice as per Annexure-B. Under such circumstances, the petition shall succeed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The Notice dated 05.09.2024 issued by respondent No.3-Bank, produced as per Annexure-B, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS