Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.3214 OF 2016 (LR)
Between:
Kunni Ahamad S/o. Kunni Pokar Aji Aged about 58 years R/at Mettil Vynadu District Kerala State, 11th Cross, W.O.C.Road Mahalakshmi Puram, 2nd Stage Bangalore – 560 086.
... Petitioner (By Sri.Chidananda Kumar, Adv.)
And:
The Assistant Commissioner
Kollegala Sub-Division
Kollegala, Chamarajanagara District – 571 440.
TheTahsildar
Gundlupet
Chamarajanagara Taluk
Chamarajanagara District – 571 111.
... Respondents (By Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiremath, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dtd.3.7.2012 passed by the R1 in Case No.LRF 46/2008-09 vide Annex-G to the w.p. and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
This writ petition is directed against the order at Annexure-G dated 3.7.2012 whereby, the first respondent has declared the sale deeds at Annexures-A and B as null and void.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has produced the certificate from the Tahsildar at Annexure-C, which shows that the income of the petitioner for the year 2000-01 to 2004-05 is less than `2,00,000/- per annum. Without taking into consideration the aforesaid certificate, the first respondent has declared the sale deeds as null and void.
On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has sought to justify the impugned order.
Perusal of the order at Annexure-G shows that the purchase of the property under the sale deeds at Annexures-A & B has been declared as null and void on the ground of non-production of income tax returns for a period of five years previous to the date of sale deeds. The petitioner has produced the certificate issued by the Tahsildar at Annexure-C before the first respondent, which shows that the annual income of the petitioner is less than `2,00,000/- lakhs for a period of five years previous to the date of the sale deeds. The first respondent appears to have passed the order without noticing this certificate. I am of the view that the first respondent has to reconsider the matter.
4 5. In the result, writ petition succeeds and it is allowed in part. The order at Annexure-G dated 3.7.2012 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh disposal in accordance with law. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE