Karnataka High Court
The State Karnataka vs Sri. Adhinarayan Reddy on 31 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43726-DB
WA No. 1022 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101
Digitally
signed by 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AMBIKA H B CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
Location: CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101
High Court
of Karnataka
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BAGEPALLI TALUK
BAGEPALLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, G.A.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43726-DB
WA No. 1022 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI ADHINARAYAN REDDY
S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 2-81
VANDANAPALLI MAIN ROAD
ANANTHAPUR TOWN
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 001
REPERSENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI. NAVEEN
S/O SRINIVAS
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.22662/2024 (KLR-RES) DATED 31.08.2024 AND THEREBY
DISMISS THE SAID PETITION & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.
No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
NC: 2025:KHC:43726-DB
HC-KAR
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.22662/2024 (KLR-RES). The respondent filed the said
writ petition, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Assistant Commissioner, Tahsildar and the Deputy
Director of Land Records (arrayed as respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the
writ petition) to consider the representation dated 03.07.2024 as
well as the communication dated 06.07.2024 and assign a new
survey number to the extent of five acres.
3. It is the writ petitioner's case that his father was granted land
measuring five acres [subject land] pursuant to a direction issued
by the Assistant Commissioner in 1951. The writ petitioner claimed
that his father had participated in public auction and was declared
successful along with two other persons. Each of the successful
bidders were granted certificates to the extent of five acres each.
The petitioner's grievance was that a new survey number has not
been assigned to the land granted to his father.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the appellants submits said that there are no records available
which indicate that there was a grant in favour of the petitioner's
NC: 2025:KHC:43726-DB
HC-KAR
father. She states that for the first time an entry is made in the land
records in the year 1989 entering the petitioner's father's name.
Subsequently, there is a manual entry in the petitioner's name.
However, when the computerised records are examined, it is found
no entry is made in the name of the writ petitioner. She submits
that the entry made in 1989 is stated to be pursuant to an order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, there are no
such orders. She contends that the appellant did not have sufficient
opportunity to file objections to the writ petition. She also states that
forensic examination was conducted and forensic report has also
flagged certain issues regarding different signatures in similar ink.
She states that the signatures of the concerned authorities
recording the auction bears a date prior to the date of the auction.
5. Considering that none of these contentions, which are sought
to be advanced before this Court, could be considered by the
learned Single Judge as the appellants had not filed any statement
of objections, we consider it apposite to set aside the impugned
order and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for
consideration afresh. The appellant may file statement of
objections within a period of two weeks from date. The appellants
NC: 2025:KHC:43726-DB
HC-KAR
shall also expressly place their stand regarding the proceedings as
reflected in Annexure K to the writ petition.
6. The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
7. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed
of.
8. Let the writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge
on 04.12.2025.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
