WP/23210/2025 of M/S SANMATHI HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

PASSED ON 03.01.2024 IN W.P.NO.26205 OF 2023 (LR) , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND DECLARE THAT ALL ACTIONS AND ORDERS PASSED PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.01.2024, INCLUDING PASSING OF ORDER BEARING NO. MR T6/2024-2025 DATED 24.07.2024 BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND THE CONSEQUENT ENTRIES MADE IN THE RTC ARE QUASHED AND NULL AND VOID AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 23210/2025: BETWEEN:

1. M/S. SANMATHI HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED (COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - ANIL SETHI HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT – NO.8/2, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.

2. BASANTH KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SAMPATLAL JAIN, RESIDING AT NO.65/111, 2ND CROSS ROAD, 8TH MAIN ROAD, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, RAMMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 016.

HC-KAR

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS

M/S. CHIATHANYA PROJECTS (P) LIMITED (COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - GURU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O B C PRASAD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT - “CHAITHANYA”, NO.14, SERVICE ROAD, AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071

GURU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O B C PRASAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. CHIATHANYA PROJECTS (P) LIMITED RESIDING AT NO.280, OPPOSITE UJJWAL VIDYALAYA, NEAR HOPE FARM, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH TALUK SUB-DIVISION, OFFICE AT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

HC-KAR

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.

4. SHAMSHAD SARWER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFA, RESIDING AT NO. 30 AND 31, 2ND CROSS, RAMAHA NAGAR, PIPE LINE ROAD, KUMAR SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 078.

5. MOHAMMED TOUSEEF AHMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFA, RESIDING AT NO. 30 AND 31, 2ND CROSS, RAMAHA NAGAR, PIPE LINE ROAD, KUMAR SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 078.

6. TANZEEM SARWER AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFA, RESIDING AT NO. 30 AND 31, 2ND CROSS, RAMAHA NAGAR, PIPE LINE ROAD, KUMAR SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078.

7. MOHAMMED TOUHID AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFA, RESIDING AT NO. 30 AND 31, 2ND CROSS, RAMAHA NAGAR, PIPE LINE ROAD,

HC-KAR

KUMAR SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY B., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THAT THE ORDER OBTAINED BY R4 TO 7 AS THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED MOHAMMED MUSTAFFS ON 03/01/2024 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.26205/2023(LR) VIDE ANNEXURE-A WAS EVIDENTLY BY WAY OF SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS AND SUGGESTION OF FALSEHOOD, AND TOTALLY IN IGNORANCE OF THE STATUTORY RIGHT HAVING BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, VIDE THE

JUDGMENT

DATED 09/10/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CH2) IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.583/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL COMMON ORDER The grievance of the writ petitioners and the review petitioner is common. Both parties are aggrieved by the action of the private respondents in obtaining an order at the hands of this Court in W.P.No.26205/2023 (LR) dated 03rd January, 2024. Therefore, both matters are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

HC-KAR

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the review petitioner, submits that the private respondents herein filed the writ petition seeking relief in respect of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, in LRF Case No.[83] (BE)02/2005-06 dated 02.11.2007, and the Endorsement dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk.

3. The order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions contained in Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It was contended before this Court that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, was against their father-Sri.Mohammed Mustafa, who had purchased the property in the year 2005 and died on 18.10.2005.

4. It was, therefore, contended before this Court that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 02.11.2007 was against a dead person. It was further

HC-KAR

contended that, pursuant to the omission of Sections 79A, 79B and 79C by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2020, the proceedings would stand abated.

5. This Court accepted the contention of the private respondents herein and accordingly disposed of the writ petition while quashing the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. This Court also directed that if revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 02.11.2007, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioners.

6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the private respondents are guilty of suppression of material facts. It is pointed out from the documents filed along with the review petition that Sri.Mohammed Mustafa had sold the properties in question in favour of M/s. Sanmathi Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Basanth Kumar Jain, under three separate sale deeds i.e., one dated 15.06.2005 and two others dated 04.10.2005. Prior to the execution of the

HC-KAR

sale deeds, the lands in question were converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes by order of the competent authority dated 07.03.2005 and 08.05.2005. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the initiation of the proceedings invoking Sections 79A and 79B was unwarranted, since the lands were converted lands and not agricultural lands. Be that as it may, it is further contented that the private respondents are aware of all these facts, they are also aware of the fact that M/s. Sanmathi Homes Pvt. Ltd., entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s.Chaitanya Projects (P) Ltd., on 23.03.2007 and Chaitanya Projects proceeded to form a layout and individual sites carved out of the layout have been sold in favour of many private individuals. Concealing all these relevant facts, the private respondents herein have obtained an order at the hands of this Court. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the private respondents have gone before the Tahsildar and have got the revenue entries restored in favour of

HC-KAR

their father, in terms of the orders passed by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court should take note of the conduct of the private respondents herein and allow the review petition while recalling the order passed by this Court in writ petition W.P.No.26205/2023.

7. Learned Counsel Sri. Sampath Anand Shetty appearing for the writ petitioners viz., M/s. Sanmathi Homes Pvt. Ltd., and Sri. Basanth Kumar Jain, supports the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel.

8. Learned Counsel Sri.Jayapraka Shetty B., appearing for the private respondents/original writ petitioners, who had also appeared for the said parties before this Court in the writ petition is not in a position to oppose the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and learned Counsel Sri.Sampath Anand Shetty. However, the learned Counsel submits that since the review petitioner and the writ petitioners were not parties to the original proceedings, they should not be permitted

HC-KAR

to challenge the order passed by this Court by filing a review petition or writ petition.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts narrated herein above, brings to fore the conduct of the private respondents. Although it is sought to be contented by the learned Counsel for the private respondents that the since their father-Mohammed Mustafa had died in the year 2005, they were not aware of the facts that he had sold the property earlier in favour of M/s. Sanmathi Homes or that M/s. Sanmathi Homes had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. Chaitanya Projects (P) Ltd., and therefore, no fault should be found with the private respondents, this Court is not in a position to accept such submissions. It is the duty of the private respondents to have firstly collected all relevant information and thereafter, they should have approached this Court with clean hands. Now that the review petitioner and the writ petitioners have placed before this Court the relevant facts, this Court is required to consider and

HC-KAR

redress the grievance of the review petitioner and the writ petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the review petition as well as the writ petition are allowed. Consequently, this Court recalls the order dated 03rd January 2024, in W.P.No.26205/2023 (LR). Nevertheless, liberty is reserved to the private respondents to approach the competent Court to redress their grievance, if any, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

11. In view of the above, all Pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

TMP,DL CT:SM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27