- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17708 WP No. 102565 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102565 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: N. VENKATESH S/O. LATE SRI SOMANNA AGE: 71 YEARS, R/AT: 5TH WARD, RANIPET SANGH STREET, HOSAPETE TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583201 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT VIJAYANAGARA-583201 3. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAPETE VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583201 4. THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVANA (MITHIK SOCIETY), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.11 16:18:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17708 WP No. 102565 of 2021 5. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVANA (MITHIK SOCIETY), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. D.M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO FURNISH THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE SITE (TITLE DEED) WITH RESPECT TO ALLOTMENT OF SITE NO. 12B TO THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER, SRI. SOMANNA AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS APPLICATION DATED 02.08.2018 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to furnish the certified copy of the order of assignment of house site (Title Deed) with respect to allotment of site no. 12b to the father of the petitioner, Sri. Somanna as sought for by the petitioner in his application dated 02.08.2018 found at Annexure-K and b. issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission, Respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17708 WP No. 102565 of 2021 No. 5 in Appeal No. KaMaA 15884 APL 2018 dated 04.02.2020 found at Annexure –U” 2. The prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a direction to furnish a certified copy of the assignment/title deed in respect of allotment of Site No.12B. Conspicuously, the date of allotment is absent in the prayer. 3. It is stated that the ancestors of the petitioner were allotted Site No.12B. The question, however, is when the allotment took place. The allotment dates back to the year 1953. After nearly 68 years, the legal heirs of the allottee, who themselves are now aged about 71 years or more, submitted a representation to the respondents seeking documents relating to the said allotment. Whatever documents were available with the State have already been furnished. 4. The petitioner is now before this Court seeking a direction to furnish the title deed that was allegedly handed over at the time of allotment. If the title deed had indeed not been issued or handed over, the allotment itself would have remained incomplete, and the original allottee, to whom allotment was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17708 WP No. 102565 of 2021 made 75 years ago, would certainly have questioned such non- issuance at that time. 5. The petitioner’s family has awakened from a deep slumber after nearly 69 years, submitted a representation, filed the present petition in the year 2021, and now, in 2025, seeks a writ of mandamus. 6. It is not only the responsibility of the State to preserve documents that are in its custody; the citizen also bears the responsibility of safeguarding the documents handed over to him. 7. Merely because the documents are not available with the petitioner, the State cannot be blamed, particularly when a direction is sought 75 years after the allotment to provide a document which the State has already replied stating is not available. 8. Ostensibly, given that 75 years have passed, and finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1