- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5182 WP No. 2325 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2325 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MUNINANJAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE SOMANAHALLI POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560082 (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE THASILDAR AND EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMEN FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF LAND, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5182 WP No. 2325 of 2025 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RADHA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN L.N.D.R.A(S).18/17-18 AS PER ANNX-H AND J AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE BY FIXING THE TIME FRAME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 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 This captioned petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of 2nd respondent in not deciding the appeal pending in Appeal No.L.N.D.R.A(S):18/17-18 vide Annexure-H and J. Therefore, this petition is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. 3. Petitioners filed application under Form No.5 way back in 1991. The Taluk Surveyor prepared a sketch demarcating the portion of petitioner's unauthorized - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5182 WP No. 2325 of 2025 cultivation. Revenue Inspector based on the sketch has given a report stating that the schedule property is beyond 22 km of then BMP limit and stating that petitioner is entitled for grant. Respondent No.3 did not consider the petitioner's application which led the petitioner to seek a mandamus from this court in W.P No.46512/2016. The Co-ordinate bench of this court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Tahsildar to place the petitioner's application before the land grant committee within 4 weeks. 4. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated: 08.03.2017 stating that petition property falls within 18 kms of BBMP and thereby petition land cannot be granted. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 49(a) of KLR Act in L.N.D.R.A(S):18/17-18 questioning the endorsement issued by Respondent No.3. This appeal is found to be pending since 2017. It is also crucial to note that petitioner had produced relevant documents to substantiate that similarly placed applicants are granted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5182 WP No. 2325 of 2025 land in the same survey number, which is evidenced at Annexure-H. 5. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the grant, similarly placed applicants names are also reflected in the RTC based on grant order. He would therefore contend that the restriction of 18 kms radius cannot be applied to the case on hand as the concerned authority had also secured the detailed report indicating that the petition land is located beyond 22 kms radius. 6. Though learned Additional Government Advocate has resisted this writ petition on the ground that the restriction of 18 kms radius has to be strictly applied before granting the land in question, this Court is not inclined to accept the said argument. The Assistant Commissioner is bound to take cognizance of the reported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.58789/2016. The relevant paragraphs reads as follows: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5182 WP No. 2325 of 2025 "11. It is thus apparent from the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner based on the report obtained from the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD that distance between the boundary line of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as it existed earlier that is to say as on 1.4.1990, the date on which unauthorized occupation of the Government land was to be reckoned for regularization was more than 18 kms. from the outer periphery of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. 12. It is true, jurisdiction of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike was later extended after the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike was established. It may be that from the expanded boundary line, if the distance is reckoned, location of the two lands in the two villages may be within 18 kms. but that is not the criteria to be adopted. Section 94A provides for regularization of unauthorized occupation of government land. This provision was introduced by Act No.2 of 1991 w.e.f. 20.3.1991. Sub clause (4) of Section 94A provides that subject to such Rules as may be prescribed, any person liable to be evicted under sub section 2A of Section 94A and who had been in unauthorized occupation prior to 1.4.1990, if he satisfies the prescribed condition and makes within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act 1990 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5182 WP No. 2325 of 2025 application for such grant in the prescribed form paying prescribed fees, shall be entitled for the land. Second proviso enacted to Section 94A states that no land shall be granted in the areas lying within the limits of cities and the city municipalities specified in column 2 of table therein and within the distance from such limits specified in the corresponding entries in column 3 thereof." 7. Since there is inaction on the part of 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner in not deciding the appeal, this is a fit case where a mandamus lies. This Court accordingly passes the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner shall decide the appeal strictly adhering in accordance with law after notifying the parties and hear afresh. iii. The Assistant Commissioner shall also take cognizance of the judgment rendered by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5182 WP No. 2325 of 2025 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.58789/2016. He shall also take cognizance of grant made to similar applicants in the same survey number. iv. The appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28