- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2075 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. H. SUNANDA WIFE OF MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT HL-NO.97 MADURANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE HADRIPURA GRAMAPANCHAYATH DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY .V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALURU-560001. 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HADRIPURA GRAMAPANCHAYATH DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGLURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 3. THE TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER DODDABALLAPURA TALUK Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 DODDABALLAPURA BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND DODDABALLAPUR-561203. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND DODDABALLAPUR-561203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. 1717/01/2017-2018, VIDE ORDER DATED 02.01.2019 (ANNEXURE-Q) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner in the captioned petition is assailing the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3/Taluka Executive Officer vide Annexure-Q who has ordered to cancel the katha standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of house list No.97 measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 35 feet situated at Sy.No.10 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 Maduranahosahalli Village, Hadripura Gramapanchayat, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner assails the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, as evidenced at Annexure-Q, primarily on the ground that her application seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of the schedule property is presently pending consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. The pendency of this application is substantiated by the petitioner through documentary evidence placed on record at Annexure-M. It is the petitioner’s contention that any proceedings seeking to dispossess her or interfere with her possession over the schedule property would be premature - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 and contrary to law, particularly when her claim for regularization under the relevant statutory provisions is yet to be adjudicated upon by the competent authority. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Gram Panchayat, supported by the learned Additional Government Advocate, would submit that the schedule property, forming part of Survey No.10, was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat under the Ashraya Yojana Scheme. This scheme was implemented to facilitate the identification and allocation of residential sites to eligible beneficiaries belonging to weaker sections. The said land was earmarked for distribution under a socio-economic rehabilitation program, and as such, the Gram Panchayat was vested with the authority to prepare a list of deserving beneficiaries and to oversee the allotment process. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner, despite being in unauthorized occupation of the said land, cannot - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 claim any superior right or exemption, especially in light of the larger public interest underlying the Ashraya Yojana. 5. The material placed on record, however, reveals that the petitioner was in possession of a portion of the schedule land even prior to the transfer of the said land to the Gram Panchayat. It is asserted by the petitioner that she had occupied the subject property, bearing House List No.97 and measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 35 feet, prior to the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to transfer the land for public distribution under the Ashraya Yojana. It is further alleged that she has constructed a residential structure, either in the form of an RCC or mud house, by availing financial assistance under the Indira Ashraya Yojana, and that the house so constructed has been mortgaged to secure such assistance. This factual backdrop paints a complex picture of overlapping rights and obligations between the petitioner and the respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 6. While the conduct of the petitioner in encroaching upon government land without prior authorization may be viewed as improper and irregular, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner has constructed a dwelling house on the subject land and has secured funding under a centrally sponsored scheme, namely the Indira Ashraya Yojana. Given the petitioner’s existing occupation, the construction of a residential house, and the grant of a licence by the Gram Panchayat permitting such construction, this Court is of the considered view that the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 94-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, requires a comprehensive and objective consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. In doing so, the Deputy Commissioner shall examine the legal question as to whether, after the transfer of the land to the Gram Panchayat for a specific public purpose, he retains jurisdiction under Section 94-C to consider the regularization application. Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner shall take into account the fact - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 that public funds, including contributions from the Union Government, have been expended under the Ashraya Yojana, and that the petitioner was granted permission by the local authority to construct a residence. All these relevant factors must be duly weighed while disposing of the application filed by the petitioner. Until such time as the said application is decided on merits, the respondents are restrained from taking any precipitative or coercive action against the petitioner in relation to the subject property. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition stands disposed of; (ii) The Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application strictly in accordance with the mandate of Section 94C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20038 WP No. 2075 of 2019 (iii) The impugned order dated 02.01.2019 passed by respondent No.3 – Taluka Executive Officer, vide Annexure-Q, shall be kept in abeyance; (iv) Till such time the application under Section 94C is considered and appropriate orders are passed thereon, no further steps shall be taken pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-Q; (v) The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner forthwith; (vi) Upon receipt of the order, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice to the petitioner, afford an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34