- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8518 WP No. 11992 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11992 OF 2024 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O SRI. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KILARADAHALLI VILLAGE, PILALI POST, J.G. HALLI HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 143. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PANKAJA B.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 3. TAHSILDAR HIRIYURU TALUK, HIRIYURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 143. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8518 WP No. 11992 of 2024 4. COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY AND TAHSILDAR, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 143. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARISATION AND TAKE DECISION IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO 4 ACRES OF LAND IN SY NO. 39 OF KILARADAHALLI VILLAGE, JAVANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AS PER THE DETAILS SHOWN IN FORM NO. 57 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A IN THE LIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. RD 59 LGP 2000 BANGALORE DATED 22.02.2003 AND UNIQUE QUE NO. RD 11 SVEE AND RAA 2003 DATED 22.02.2003 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND PASS ORDER FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.11.2023 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C 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:8518 WP No. 11992 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner in the captioned petition is seeking a mandamus against respondent No.3-Tahasildar to place his application filed in form No.57 seeking regularization of unauthorized cultivation over the petition land. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records. 3. Learned HCGP though is seeking time to seek instructions in the matter, this court is of the view that records clearly reveal that the petitioner has tendered an online application in the prescribed form, which is evidenced at Annexure-A. 4. Once the jurisdictional Tahsildar receives an application for regularization, under sub-clause (3) of Rule 108CCC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, it is his statutory duty to scrutinize the application thoroughly. This scrutiny involves not only examining the details provided by the applicant but also conducting a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8518 WP No. 11992 of 2024 comprehensive verification process. As per the mandate of the rule, the Tahsildar is required to initiate and oversee a spot inspection of the land in question and obtain all relevant documentary evidence from subordinate offices. These steps are essential to ensure that the application is processed in accordance with legal provisions and factual accuracy. 5. However, in the present case, despite having received the application, Respondent No.3-Tahsildar has failed to initiate the mandatory spot inspection process. The absence of such an inspection indicates a lapse in procedural compliance, which is crucial for determining the legitimacy of the claim. The Tahsildar’s responsibilities do not end merely with the receipt and preliminary scrutiny of the application; rather, he must take proactive steps to collect necessary reports and other corroborative documents. This is imperative to facilitate the due course of action, which includes placing the petitioner’s - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8518 WP No. 11992 of 2024 application before Respondent No.4-Land Grant Committee for further consideration. 6. In light of these circumstances, it is evident that the inaction of Respondent No.3-Tahsildar has resulted in an unjustified delay in processing the petitioner’s request. Given that the rule explicitly prescribes the procedural steps to be followed, failure to adhere to them warrants judicial intervention. Therefore, this case presents a clear instance where the issuance of a writ of mandamus is justified, directing Respondent No.3- Tahsildar to immediately take necessary action, including conducting the spot inspection and gathering relevant reports, to ensure that the petitioner's application is duly placed before the Land Grant Committee for consideration in accordance with law. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8518 WP No. 11992 of 2024 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith secure a report as contemplated under 108ccc of 1966 Rules. iii. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order copy. iv. If respondent No.3-Tahasildar finds that the petitioner's application is eligible, he shall forthwith place it before respondent No.4- committee for further course of action. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK