- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34491 WP No. 2326 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2326 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: VEERESH SON OF AMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.1054, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITHIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KAMALAMMA D/O CHINNAPPA REDDY WIFE OF CHOWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT: CHIKKA MASJID ROAD SARJAPUR, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125. 2. PANCHYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND SECRETARY YAMARE GRAMA PANCHAYAT SARJAPUR HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125. 3. MAHABALESHWARA SON OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34491 WP No. 2326 of 2019 MAJOR ITTINA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED NO.1054, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER APPELLATE AUTHORITY ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYAT OFFICE ATTIBELE-ANEKAL ROAD ANEKAL -562 107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.2019 NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.06.2013 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. VPC : APPEAL:14:2008-09 (ANNEXURE-R) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34491 WP No. 2326 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts ownership of a certain extent of lands in Sy. Nos.30/1 and 31/1 of Sompura Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk and Sy.No.7/1 of Chikkadunnasandra Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk [the subject lands] under three sale deeds that are dated 13.01.2004. The petitioner's grievance is with the fourth respondent's order dated 20.06.2013 [Annexure-R]. The fourth respondent, by the impugned order dated 20.06.2013, has cancelled the revenue entries for the subject lands in favour of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayathraj Act, 1993 on the ground that the revenue entries are despite pending proceedings in R.A.No.9/2002 as against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 238/88 and F.D.P. No.1/2002. Mr. Nithin Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's vendor - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34491 WP No. 2326 of 2019 [Ms. Kamalamma] had executed the sale deeds in anticipation of the final decree in the suit for partition instituted by her in O.S.No.238/1988 which was pending in the final decree proceedings in FDP.No.1/2002 and that the civil Court has finally drawn the final decree in terms of the Commissioner's report with the Court Commissioner demarcating the portion sold by her in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that thereafter, Ms. Kamalamma had filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2/2011, but in terms of a copy of the order now placed on record, the suit is dismissed as not pressed but observing that she did not disclose the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. This Court must examine whether there must be interference with the fourth respondent's order in the light of these circumstances and the petitioner's specific case that he was not issued with any notice prior to the impugned order. This Court must opine - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34491 WP No. 2326 of 2019 that the petitioner's rights in the subject lands is accrued with the Sale deeds dated 13.01.2004 during the pendency of the final decree proceedings, and that any defect in such transfer stands cured with the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel as contemplated under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This Court also opines that this gets reiterated with the first respondent withdrawing the suit in O.S.No.2/2011. These circumstances justify interference with the fourth respondent's order. Hence the following. ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the fourth respondent's order dated 20.06.2013 [Annexure - R]. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB