- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2304 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SRINIVAS N, S/O. LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED 58 YEARS 2. NARASIMHA MURTHY. N. S/O. LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED 53 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT INJANAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, NH-207, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 DODDABALLPUR-DEVENAHALLI HIGHWAY, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 4. THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 94A OF THE KLR ACT FOR REGULARISATION OF UN-AUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF LAND, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 07.12.2020 BEARING NO. LND(H)CR2020-2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.11.2024 BEARING NO. LNDCR296/2020-2021 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-C AND D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the official memorandum dated 07.12.2020 bearing No.LND(H)CR2020-2021 issued by respondent No.2 and endorsement dated 05.11.2024 bearing No.LNDCR296/2020-2021 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C and D. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners' grant is cancelled on the premises that the granted land is within 18 km. radius from BBMP. This issue is effectively addressed by the co- ordinate bench. It would be useful for this Court to cull out relevant paragraph No.4 of W.P.No.10724/2024, which reads as under: "4. This Court has held, having regard to the earlier decisions in the case of SRI. RAVI KUMAR AND OTHERS (SUPRA), as follows: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 "5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and the Revenue Authorities and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the law as to the consideration of the distance having regard to the date of the application has been settled by this Court. Therefore, all that is required to be done now at the hands of the respondent - Tahsildar is to find out the distance between the land in question and the boundary of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as on the date of the application. Learned counsel had submitted during the course of the arguments that it appears that the boundaries of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike were extended in the year 2007 by a notification. If that is the truth, then the Tahsildar is required to re-ascertain regarding the distance between the land in question and boundary of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as it was prior to 2007, if such a notification was issued and the boundaries of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike were extended in the year 2007. At any rate in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of SRI ASHWATHAPPA AND OTHERS (SUPRA), the distance has to be measured as per the geographical jurisdiction of local body as it was on the date of the application filed by the petitioners. 6. For that purpose, the writ petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and all other earlier orders passed by the Tahsildar. The matter stands remanded to the Tahsildar, Hosakote with a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 specific direction that he shall decide as to what was the distance between the land in question and the boundary of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as it was as on the date of application i.e., in the year 1998. If it is clear that the land in question was not within the prohibited distance having regard to the boundaries of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, then the Tahsildar shall immediately proceed to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 4. In the present case on hand, records reveal that the Land Grant Committee having conducted a summary enquiry in terms of section 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966(for short, 'KLR Rules, 1966'), has declined to recommend the petitioners' case for regularization on the ground that the impugned land which is now sought to be regularize falls within 18 km. radium. The petitioner's application is dated 27.11.1998. 5. In the light of the significant details, this Court is of the view that bagur hukum committee which is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 presided by respondent No.4/Tahsildar is required to hold a fresh enquiry in terms of Rule 108(D) of KLR Rules, 1966 without taking cognizance of 18 Kms. radius. As the petitioners' application dates back to 1998, 18 Km. radius cannot be applied at this juncture. 6. In light of the legal principles established by this Court, the Committee is required to examine whether the petitioners have presented sufficient material evidence to substantiate their claim of unauthorized cultivation of the land in question. If such evidence is adequately provided, the Committee must make an appropriate decision in accordance with the law. Upon reviewing the records, this Court finds that the impugned official memorandum issued by respondent No.2 and the endorsement by respondent No.3 are unsustainable and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The imposition of an 18 km radius restriction is not justified in the present case. Furthermore, it is evident that the petitioners' application should not be subjected to the prohibition outlined in the 2005 notification, as such a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 restriction cannot be retrospectively applied to applications submitted before the issuance of the notification. The said notification must be applied prospectively, and therefore, any reliance on the 18 km radius restriction in this case is unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the Committee is directed to proceed in accordance with the law without applying the restriction in question. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The official memorandum dated 07.12.2020 and the endorsement dated 05.11.2024 vide Annexure-D and D, are hereby quashed and set aside; iii. The Bagur Hukum committee shall examine the petitioners' claim a fresh and shall hold an enquiry strictly in terms of procedure - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6459 WP No. 2304 of 2025 enumerated under Rule 108D of KLR Rules, 1966 and shall pass appropriate orders; iv. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six months' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK