Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20611 (KAR)

SRI. SUBRAMANI v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

WP/7532/2025 · 2025-03-17

N S Sanjay Gowda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10940 WP No. 7532 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7532 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ KALLEKAYI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAJANUKUNTE POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUNIGANGAPPA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560009. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR LAND GRANT COMMITTEE YELAHANKA, NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DIST - 560064. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10940 WP No. 7532 of 2025 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION, BANGALORE DISTRICT, CAUVERY BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SMT. SUMANA BALIGA, ADV. FOR R5.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.50 DATED 29.07.1991 AND FORM NO.53 DATED 02.12.1998 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C AND GRANT THE LAND AND ISSUES SAGUVALI CHIT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.1 TO AN EXTENT OF 2-00 ACRES OF LAND MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH ADDL. TALUK AND HE IS IN POSSESSION, CULTIVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SAID LAND SINCE 60 YEARS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT AND ETC. 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 The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a direction to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.50 dated 29.07.1991 and form No.53 dated 02.12.1998 and issuance of a Saguvali chit. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10940 WP No. 7532 of 2025 2. Today, an application for amendment is filed seeking for quashing of the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 28.04.2011, a copy of which is already produced as per Annexure 'H'. A perusal of annexure 'H', which is sought to be challenged by way of an amendment indicates that the applications in respect of 11 claimants was situated within 18 kms from the limits of the Corporation and therefore the claim of petitioner for regularization cannot be considered. 3. This order is sought to be challenged after a period of 14 years. Be that as it may, leaned counsel for the respondent points out that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.6578/2022 had considered similar matters and had in- fact issued an interim direction on 26.09.2023, directing the Chief Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'the BBMP'), to ascertain the distance of the land having regard to the limits of Bangaluru Mahanagara Palike as on 29.07.1991 and on securing the report from the Chief Commissioner, to the effect that the boundary of Mahanagara Palike as on 29.07.1991 was within 11.5 kms, this Court dismissed the writ petitions. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10940 WP No. 7532 of 2025 4. In my view, the case of the petitioner would also fall within the purview of the decision already rendered by the coordinate bench in as much as the application of the petitioner for regularization was made in 1991 and as already recorded in the aforementioned order, the distance from the boundary of the BBMP was 11.15 kms and therefore it is obvious that the claim of the petitioner for regularization cannot be considered and it was rightly refused way back in the year 2011. 5. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE BH: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31