- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7511 WP No. 4087 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.4087 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. PRAMEELAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJ H V AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT HALASAHALLI KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THOUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE - 562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7511 WP No. 4087 of 2025 QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.01.2025 IN NO. NIL ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PLACE THE APPLICATION OF FATHER- IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER MARKED AT ANNEXURE - A BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME EXPEDITIOUSLY. 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 Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 23.1.2025 issued by the Tahsildar who has applied 18 Kms. radius to reject the petitioner's application in Form No.50 seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA. 3. The issue as to whether 2015 notification can be retrospectively applied to the earlier pending - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7511 WP No. 4087 of 2025 applications filed in Form No.50 is effectively addressed and dealt by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14419 of 2024. Paragraph 3 would be relevant and the same is extracted, which reads as under: "3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the question of examining as to whether the application seeking regularization of a land was within the radius of 18 k.m. and what would be the relevant date to examine the radius of 18 k.m. is dealt and given a quietus by the co-ordinate bench in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.237/2022. Paragraph No.6 of the judgment would clinch the entire controversy. The same is extracted, which reads as under: "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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7511 WP No. 4087 of 2025 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. Needless to observe that the boundary shall be measured in the presence of petitioners." 4. On reading the observations made by the co-ordinate bench while rejecting the stand taken by the concerned authority, this Court is of the view that while examining the radius of 18 km., what needs to be looked into is the date of application. In the present case, the petitioners have tendered an application in Form No.50 seeking regularization in the year 1991. The endorsement clearly gives an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7511 WP No. 4087 of 2025 indication that the distance of 18 km. from the city of Bengaluru is determined as of 2015. Therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench resolving the present controversy, this Court is of the view that the endorsement issued by respondent No.2/Tahasildar vide Annexure-G is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii)The impugned endorsement dated 23.1.2025 issued by respondent No.2/Tahsildar is hereby quashed and respondent No.2/Tahasildar is hereby directed to place the application evidenced at Annexure-A before the Bagar Hukkum Committee; (iii)The committee, shall proceed to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Section - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7511 WP No. 4087 of 2025 108D(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1966; (iv)The Committee shall accomplish the enquiry as contemplated under 1996 Rules within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39