Sri N Chandra Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/09/2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.27602/2011 (KLR-RR-SUR) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION BEARING W.P.NO.27602/2011 (KLR-RR-SUR) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 HEREIN AND ETC

¶35

IN WA NO.1109/2022

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

SRI. B S ANJINAPPA S/O SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDENT OF BAGALUR VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK

¶38

REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER

¶39

SRI. VINAY KUMAR R S/O N R RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.39 3^RD CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT

¶40

2

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:22844-DB WA No. 1152 of 2022 C/W WA No. 1109 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CHANDRA LAYOUT MAIN ROAD VIAJAYANAGAR

¶44

BENGALURU - 560 040

¶45

...APPELLANT

¶46

(BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 009

¶49

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE – 560 009

¶50

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK BANGALORE – 560 064

¶51

SRI. K N HARIKUMAR S/O K A NETTAKALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.405-406 BRIGADE TOWERS NO.135, BRIGADE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025

¶52

SRI. N CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA RESIDENT OF DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND TALUK DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SANTHKUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI. NISHANTH A V, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶55

3

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:22844-DB WA No. 1152 of 2022 C/W WA No. 1109 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/09/2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.27602/2011 (KLR-RR-SUR) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN AND ETC

¶59

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶61

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶62

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

¶63

The challenge in these appeals is of an order dated

¶64

21.09.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.27602/2011 (KLR-RR/SUR).

¶65

This Court had, after hearing the parties, on

¶66

18.03.2026 directed as follows:

¶67

“The learned Additional Government Advocate submits on instructions that though a thorough search has been made pursuant to the order dated 20.02.2026, the records of Case No.100/65-66, as well as Case No.31/59-60 with regard to Sy.No.99 of Jodi Huvinayakanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk are not available, either in the office of the Tahsildar nor in the offices of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. His submission is placed on record….”

¶68

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶69

4

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:22844-DB WA No. 1152 of 2022 C/W WA No. 1109 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

The learned Government Advocate has on

¶73

23.04.2026 placed on record an affidavit which now states that they have located the records in INA 31/1959-60. It is apposite to extract paragraphs 2, 3, 4 of this affidavit

¶74

below:

¶75

“2. I state that pursuant to order dated: 16/06/2022 and 23/06/2022 passed in W.P.No.27602/2011(KLR), the then Tahsildar Sri. K. Narasimhamurthy had filed an affidavit stating that he was unable to find the records. In para 2 of the said affidavit, he had referred to case no. HOA/100-65-66 dated: 29/11/1965. However, the records relating to case No HOA/100/65-66 is not related to the present case. On the other hand, the Writ Petition relates to Case No. INA 31/1959-60.

¶76

3. I state that this Hon'ble Court vide dated: 20/02/2026 has directed the Respondent No.1 to place the original records pertaining to Case No. 100/65-66 in respect of Sy.No.99 of Jodi Huvinayakanahalli Village, Jala hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and also original records pertaining to Case No. 31/59-60 concerning the same survey Number. The original file pertaining to Case No. 100/65-66 is not available and the original file pertaining to Case No. INA 31/1959-60 is available.

¶77

4. I state that filing of the affidavit dated: 17/07/2022 by Sri K. Narasimhamurthy in relation to Case No. HOA/100/65-6 appears to be a bonafide error.”

¶78

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶79

Learned counsel for the parties submit given this new

¶80

information, the premise on which the order of the learned

¶81

Single Judge was based, has now been reversed.

¶82

5

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:22844-DB WA No. 1152 of 2022 C/W WA No. 1109 of 2022

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

In this view of the matter, this Court deems it apposite to remand these appeals to the learned Single Judge to an examination afresh in terms of the affidavit that has now been placed on record by the learned

¶86

Government Advocate.

¶87