Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23775
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anu Sivaraman, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
Town Municipal Council – Appellant
Versus
H. R. Jagadish – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO.30 OF 2023
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Municipal Property Title and Transfer
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appeals - Scope of intra-court appeal - High Court decisions which have attained finality cannot be questioned in subsequent collateral proceedings - Once a Division Bench directs execution of sale deed and the same is complied with, subsequent refusal to effect revenue changes based on title disputes is impermissible. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The property was purchased in a public auction in 1963. Despite the sale being confirmed by the government, a sale deed was not executed. After decades of litigation, including a successful writ appeal and contempt proceedings, the municipality executed a registered sale deed in 2009. Respondents subsequently sought khatha transfer, which was resisted by the appellant, claiming the land belonged to the government, leading to renewed litigation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellants were bound by the finality of the earlier Division Bench order. Having executed the sale deed pursuant to court directions, the respondents were estopped from challenging their own title to the property. The learned Single Judge correctly directed the Municipality to effect the khatha transfer.
Issues: Whether the appellants could dispute the title of the property and refuse to effect the khatha transfer after having previously executed a registered sale deed pursuant to judicial orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a public authority executes a registered sale deed under judicial command and own undertaking, they are estopped from questioning title; such vested rights cannot be unilaterally cancelled without a court decree.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nagaraj S. Jain
For the Respondents: Savithramma
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of litigation and procedural background regarding property auction and sale deed execution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. observations on estoppal of public authorities after complying with judicial orders by executing sale deeds. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. contentions raised by appellants regarding lack of title and government ownership. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. final ratio regarding binding nature of previous judicial pronouncements and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25583/2014 (LB-RES).
2. We have heard Shri. Nagaraj S. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.6.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Late Shri. H.C. Ramachandraiah had purchased immovable property bearing No.1387/1224 situated at Devanahalli Town, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District in a public auction held on 28.11.1963 for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and the sale was confirmed and approved by the Government of Karnataka. However, no Sale Deed was executed in his favour. Shri. H.C. Ramachandraiah died on 24.05.1985, leaving behind his wife Smt. Gowramma and respondents No.1 to 5 herein as his legal heirs.
4. Smt. Gowramma and respondent No.1 herein initially filed Writ Petition No.17846/1987 seeking a direction to execute the Sale Deed, but the petition was dismissed on 20.12.1995 on the ground of delay and laches. This was challenged in Writ Appeal No.5559/1996, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 22.06.1998, directing the respondents to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the appellants and to make consequential changes in the concerned Registers of the Municipality. As the directions were not complied with, contempt proceedings in CCC No.338/1999 (Civil) was initiated. By Order dated 30.07.2001, the contempt petition was disposed of as the respondents undertook to execute the Sale Deed within a period of four weeks. Even thereafter, no compliance was made, forcing Smt. Gowramma to revive the contempt proceedings in the year 2008.
5. By Order dated 17.09.2009, this Court recorded the undertaking of the accused to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of Late Shri. H.C. Ramachandraiah on 19.09.2009 and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police to ensure compliance. After rectification of typographical errors in the said order, a registered Sale Deed dated 26.09.2009 was executed in favour of respondents No.1 to 5 herein.
6. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 5 herein applied for khatha of the property. As no action was taken, Writ Petition No.17593/2010 (LB-RES) was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31.08.2010, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for change of khatha in accordance with law. As no action was taken, CCC No.7/2011 was initiated. The accused/Municipality stated that it was unclear whether the property belonged to the Municipality or the Revenue Department and suggested that the complainants to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of title. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of by Order dated 28.02.2011. An order was passed by the Municipal Office, Devanahalli to that effect on 15.02.2011.
7. The petitioners challenged the Order dated 15.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.30570/2012. By Order dated 23.10.2013, writ petition was allowed and the order dated 15.02.2011 was quashed. The respondents/Municipality was directed to consider the representation of the petitioners within a period of two months. Since the respondents/Municipality did not comply with the said order, contempt proceedings in CCC No.567/2014 was initiated.
8. During the pendency of the said contem
