- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9807 WP No. 46062 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 46062 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. ANAND SURANA, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O LATE GHEWARCHAND SURANA, NO.45/3, FAIRFIELD LAYOUT, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY HIS PA HOLDER, SRI. HITESH.V.SHAH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O V.H.SHAH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. STATE BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9807 WP No. 46062 of 2016 3. TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA NORTH ADDITIONAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.MANJUNATH, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-2 IN CASE NO.RRT/2/N(A)CR/13/10-11 DATED 16.09.2015 UNDER SEC. 136(3) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 / Special Deputy Commissioner-1, under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by which he has come to the conclusion that the land bearing Sy.No.76/p12 measuring 4 acres situated at Chikkajala Village, Jala Hobli, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9807 WP No. 46062 of 2016 Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk and was classified as 'Gomala' and he has directed the deletion of the name of the petitioner in Revenue records and directed the name of the Government to be entered in the records. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he had filed his objections on 08.05.2012 and even these objections were not even noticed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order. It is also contended that as could be seen from the order sheet, the matter was repeatedly adjourned right from the year 2012 on one reason or the other and on 28.07.2015 RPAD notice was ordered and since this notice was served and the petitioner remained absent, he was placed ex-parte and an order was passed. 3. This indicates that the impugned order is essentially an order passed without hearing the petitioner. It is also noticed that the petitioner had filed objections in which, he had categorically stated that he had purchased this property under a registered sale deed and pursuant to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9807 WP No. 46062 of 2016 it, he also got permission from the Deputy Commissioner himself for using this land for industrial purpose. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that even these contentions were not considered by the Deputy Commissioner, despite objections being filed to that effect by the petitioner. 4. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction that he shall reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and after considering the objections that have been raised by the petitioner. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64