- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14442 WP No. 1248 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. JAYA SHETTY S/O RUKMAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HALLANDODY, PADANGADY VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K-574 217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, D.K- 575 001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR, D.K- 575 001. 3. TAHASILDAR, BELTHANGADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K-574 217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITIOIN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION F INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 14.06.2024 PASSED BY R-1 IN RAP 134/2022 AS PER ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RECONSIDER THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR REGULARIZATION AS PER THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND RULES. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14442 WP No. 1248 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Vide Annexure - B, the Tahsildar rejected Form No.53 filed by the petitioner on the ground that the land claimed by the petitioner was a kumki land and, that the petitioner was not engaged in agricultural activities on the said land. This order has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner in appeal and so also by the Deputy Commissioner. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Tahsildar has rejected the Form No.53 without even hearing the petitioner and, the Tahsildar had fundamentally no jurisdiction to reject the application filed by the petitioner and it was only the Committee constituted for regularizing unauthorized occupation, which could have considered the application of petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14442 WP No. 1248 of 2025 3. A perusal of Annexure - B would indicate that the Tahsildar has fundamentally issued an endorsement rejecting the Form No.53 filed by the petitioner citing two grounds. 4. It cannot be in dispute that when an application for regularization is made, the Tahsildar is required to place his recommendation to the Committee and the Committee is to thereafter consider the claim. In this case, it appears that the Tahsildar has directly rejected the Form No.53, which would be impermissible. 5. Consequently, Annexure - B and its affirmation by the Assistant Commissioner and by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - D and A are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14442 WP No. 1248 of 2025 6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. 7. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17