- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17805 WP No. 16946 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16946 OF 2023 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: SMT. KUSUMA W/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD C/O CHATNI THIPPANNA HOUSE UPSTAIRS OPP TO GANESHA SAW MILLS BAMBOO BAZAAR DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V. GANGI REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.U. SHIVAKUMAR S/O UJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT AMAAVATHI HARIHARA - 577 601. 2. N. RUDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/A KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 427. 3. RUDRAPPA S/O SIDDAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17805 WP No. 16946 of 2023 R/A NAGARAKATTE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA M.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTIUTITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN NO.STP/IMP/02/2023.24 DTD 02.06.2023(ANNX- E) ON THE FILE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DAVANGERE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "Wherefore, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to; (a) Call for records in No.STP/IMP/02/2023-24 dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure-E) on the file of the Deputy Commissioner and District Registrar, Davangere; (b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction quashing the order dated 02.06.2023 in No.STP/IMP/02/2023-24 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Registrar, Davangere (Annexure-E) and determine the duty and penalty on the impounded document; and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17805 WP No. 16946 of 2023 (c) Grant such other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 had filed O.S.No.594/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC at Davanagere, against the petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the lawful possession of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the suit is based on the unregistered agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008 executed from respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property for total consideration of Rs.95,000/- per acre and advance of Rs.82,500/- was paid and it is a nominal sale agreement. Respondent No.2 had filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. However, he had filed a counter claim seeking injunction. Respondent No.1 as a plaintiff wanted to mark the unregistered sale agreement dated 02.09.2008. The learned Civil Judge on 08.07.2022 had passed an order directing respondent No.1 to pay duty and penalty of Rs.1,17,293/- on the instrument as agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008. Further on 27.02.2023, an order was passed on an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17805 WP No. 16946 of 2023 application filed under Section 94(c) and treated as under Section 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, referring the impounded document i.e., agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of stamp duty and penalty and the learned Civil Judge has directed the office to send the original agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Respondent No.1 had submitted an application to respondent No.4 dated 26.05.2023 and sought to reduce the stamp duty on impounding document and had to be fixed Rs.7,025/- and waive the penalty. It is the case that the petitioner has no information regarding payment of duty and penalty on the unregistered agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008. Therefore, he filed an application under Right to Information Act to the Public Information Officer. On his application, the Deputy Commissioner and District Registrar, Davanagere had issued a letter with an order dated 02.06.2023 addressed to respondent No.1/plaintiff and the authority has opined that the instrument dated 02.09.2008 is chargeable with duty and penalty of Rs.7,025/- and Rs.7,125/- respectively and total amount of Rs.14,150/- to be paid to the government. As - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17805 WP No. 16946 of 2023 the market value of the property as on the date is Rs.95,000/-, but on misrepresentation of respondent No.1, the District Registrar had not imposed ten times penalty. The District Registrar has wrongly come to the conclusion that the agreement dated 02.09.2008 is mentioned as (Kattada Kararu), but the agreement is for agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. It is stated that the Deputy Registrar has wrongly calculated the duty and penalty imposed on the agreement. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Earlier, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.11.2023 had granted an order of Stats-quo till the next date of hearing which is continued from time to time. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that this writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that when an order is passed, basing on an order passed by the Court when the document is impounded and the penalty is fixed by the Registrar, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he should agitate the same before the very same Court by filing an appropriate application, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17805 WP No. 16946 of 2023 but he cannot file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In response to that learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and basing on the misrepresentation of the respondent, the Registrar had fixed the penalty, as such the petitioner is before this Court and the writ petition is very well maintainable before this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. During the marking of the document, the Court had sent the same for impounding. A particular penalty is fixed by the Registrar and the same is remitted back to the Court. If according to the petitioner, such calculation is bad by the Registrar, he has to avail the appropriate remedy before the Court by bringing it to the notice of the Court that impounding was bad, but he cannot come before this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such the submission of the learned AGA with regard to the maintainability of the writ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17805 WP No. 16946 of 2023 petition is upheld. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. ii. All I.A., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20