SRI. HANUMEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT / ORDER BEARING NO.L.N.D(KA)CR 10/2024-25 DTD. 26.10.2024 AT ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REGULARIZE THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 33 HOBLI, OF DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, TO AN EXTENT OF 3 ACRES, WHICH IS UNDER UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF THE PETITIONER. KUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner is assailing the endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 dated 26.10.2024 vide Annexure-H. Petitioner's application seeking regularization is rejected on the ground that the proposed land which is now applied for regularization falls within 5 kilometre radius of City Municipal Council. The said order is under challenge. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7079 WP No. 213 of 2025

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.

#3. Petitioner is seeking regularization to an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.33 of Kuntanahalli Village. Petitioner is asserting that he is an unauthorized occupant and has filed Form No.50 in 1989.

#4. Learned AGA, however, has tried to resist the prayer sought in the writ petition by contending that the scheme to seek regularization of unauthorized occupation was introduced in 1990 and therefore, there was no provison to seek regularization by tendering Form No.50.

#5. Be that as it may. The issue of radius in terms of notification which is dealt by the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.23396/2022 would be relevant to decide the actual lis between the parties. Para 4 and 6 reads as under: "4. There is considerable in the submission of learned counsel petitioner. This Court while considering provisions contained in sub section 4 of Section - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7079 WP No. 213 of 2025 94A and Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 has held case of Ashwathappa(supra) noticed the fact that the applications filed at a relevant point of time are required to be considered as on the date of the application having regard to the boundary of the city municipal corporation, city municipal council or a town municipality as provided in the table annexed to sub-Section 4 of Section 94A. This is because such applications were filed by the occupants having regard to the position obtained at the relevant point of time and that the lands were beyond the prohibited distance of 18 kms from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike or 10 kms from the City Municipal Corporations or 5 kms away from the limits of the City Municipal Council or 3 kms away from the Town Municipal Council, as provided in the table. This Court had also noticed that the grants were made on similar applications, which show that if the applications were considered within a reasonable time, such applicants were eligible for grants since the lands were not within the prohibited distance. However, subsequently, after the enlargement of the boundaries of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike/City Municipal Corporations/ City Municipal Councils/ Town Municipalities, if the application is sought to be rejected on the ground of the subsequent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7079 WP No. 213 of 2025 enlargement of the jurisdiction of the authority, then such a contention raised at the hands of the authority would fall within the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution.

5.xxxxxxxx

#6. After considering the distance in terms of the directions given herein above, if it is found that the land did not fall within the prohibited distance of 18 kms at the relevant point of time, i.e., 1999- 2000, the Tahisldar shall place the application of the petitioner before the Committee regularization of unauthorized occupation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Committee shall consider and pass necessary orders within a period of two months from the date when the application is placed by the Tahsildar before the Committee."

#6. In the present case, the petitioner contends that he had submitted an application as early as 1989. Given this assertion, the concerned authorities are required to conduct a fresh and thorough inquiry to determine whether the notification issued by Government stipulating a specific radius based on the nature of the local authority should be reconsidered in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7079 WP No. 213 of 2025 context of an application filed decades earlier. The authorities must carefully assess whether the concept of a prescribed radius is applicable to such an old application or if an exception is warranted based on the circumstances. Additionally, while conducting this inquiry, the authorities must adhere to and implement the principles laid down by the coordinate Bench in the unreported judgment cited in support of the petitioner’s case.

#7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned endorsement dated

26.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 as per Annexure-H is hereby quashed; (iii) Respondent No.4 shall hold a fresh enquiry strictly adhering to the principles laid coordinate Bench W.P.No.23396/2022; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7079 WP No. 213 of 2025 (iv) Respondent No.4 after examining the judgment cited supra shall secure all relevant records and pass appropriate orders accordance with law; (v) If petitioner's application eligible, the same shall be placed before the committee for further course of action; (vi) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29