Writ Petition No. 3837 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3837 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VASANTH KUMAR K S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST 6TH CROSS, TANK MOHALLA SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST 577201 2. 3. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SETHARAMAIAH R AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST HAAREKATTE, SOGANE POST SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST 577222 JAYARAM. S/O. NARASIMHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. OCC AGRICULTURIST, 8TH CROSS, TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA-TQ AND DIST-577201 4. MURTHY D. S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, C BLOCK, ASHRYA BADAVANE, BOMMANAKATTE, SHIVAMOGGA-TQ AND DIST-577204. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 5. JAYAMMA W/O GANGARAJ. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. OCC. AGRICULTURIST, TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA - TQ AND DIST -577201. 6. GANGAMMA, W/O G BASAVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, 6TH CROSS, TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA - TQ AND DIST -577201. 7. PARMESHWARA C. S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST. NO.44/2, 8TH CROSS, TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA - TQ AND DIST-577201. 8. ANNAPPA S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, 2ND CROSS, BAPUJI NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST-577201. 9. SIDDAGANGAMMA, W/O MUNISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, 6TH CROSS, BAPUJI NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA - TQ AND DIST-577201. 10. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O DAYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 6TH CROSS, BAPUJI NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST-577201. 11. RAMANAJINAIAH, S/O HANUMAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 5TH CROSS, BAPUJI NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST-577201. 12. LAXMAMMA, W/O LATE C NARASIMIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, TANK MOHALLA, 4TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST-577201. 13. ANNAPPA SWAMY, S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, TANK MOHALLA, 6TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST-577201. 14. MANJUNATHA N,
Legal Reasoning
S/O NARASIMAHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, HOUSE NO.70/4, SRI LAKSHMI KRUPA, TANK MOHALLA, 6TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST-577201. 15. SHIVAMUTHY A, 8/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, WARD NO. 16, 3RD CROSS, GANAPATHI BADAVANE, VIDYA NAGAR. SHIVAMOGGA - TQ AND DIST -577203 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA 577201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA 577201. 5. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201 BY ITS SECRETARY / TAHASHILDAR (BY SRI. B.P. RADHA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R4 TAHASHILDAR TO PLACE ALL THE APPLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R5 COMMITTEE AS PER THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO C26 FOR CONSIDERING OF REGULARIZATION OF PETITIONERS UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION IN SY.NO. 156 OF SOGANE VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, AND DISTRICT, AND DIRECT THE R5 TO IMMEDIATELY CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION AND TO ISSUE SAGUVALI CHIT TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners in this case have submitted applications, in the prescribed form, requesting regularization of their unauthorized occupation of land. The petitioners allege that there has been a lack of action by the fourth respondent – the Tahasildar in not forwarding their applications to the fifth respondent – the Committee for further processing, as required by law. The petitioners claim that their applications for regularization have not been placed before the appropriate authorities, causing a delay in the resolution of their cases. 2. In light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court, highlighting the inaction of the fourth respondent. Additionally, the learned Additional Government Advocate has provided submissions on behalf of the respondents, addressing the matter of the petitioners' applications and the alleged delay in processing. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 3. Upon reviewing the records, it is clear that the petitioners have duly filed their applications in Form No.50, seeking the regularization of their unauthorized occupation. According to Rule 108CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, it is the responsibility of the Tahasildar, upon receiving such applications, to carefully scrutinize the applications and then forward them, along with all relevant documents, to the officer authorized by the Tahasildar for further verification. Furthermore, the Tahasildar is required to ensure that a spot inspection of the site is conducted and that all circumstantial evidence is gathered in order to assess whether the applicants are eligible for regularization. Based on this scrutiny and verification, the Tahasildar is then expected to make a decision as to whether the applications should be presented before the Land Grant Committee for further action. 4. In the present case, it is apparent that there has been clear negligence on the part of the fourth - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 respondent – the Tahasildar. Despite having received applications from the petitioners, duly filed in the prescribed Form No.50, the Tahasildar has failed to initiate the necessary procedures, including forwarding the applications for further verification or placing them before the Land Grant Committee. This inaction has caused unnecessary delays in the petitioners’ requests for regularization. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate, upon instructions, has raised concerns that some of the applications may not be genuine. However, the Tahasildar is obligated to examine the authenticity of the applications submitted by the petitioners. If the applications are found to be valid, the Tahasildar must ensure that they are forwarded to the Committee for further processing. In cases where the applications are deemed not genuine, the Tahasildar is required to refer these applications to the Deputy Commissioner for further action. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 6. Despite the concerns raised regarding the authenticity of some applications, it is clear that the Tahasildar has failed to carry out the mandated procedures in accordance with the law. Given the failure to address either of the required courses of action either placing the applications before the Committee or referring them to the Deputy Commissioner in case of ineligibility, this situation constitutes a clear case where a writ of mandamus is appropriate. The Tahasildar must be directed to take immediate action and ensure that the petitioners' applications are processed in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. 7.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Fourth respondent –Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith consider the applications as per the procedure - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6266 WP No. 3837 of 2025 provided under Sub Rule 3 of Rule 108 CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. (iv) In the event applications are found to be genuine, Tahasildar to place it before the Land Grabbing Committee. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BVK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41