- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9819 WP No. 42519 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 42519 OF 2016 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SRI. M. BALACHANDRA BHAT, S/O N. KRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A MACHIMALE, ARYAPU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. AITHAPPA MOOLYA, S/O DHOOMA MOOLYA, AGED MAJOR, R/A ARYAPPU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K - 574 201. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR - 574 201. 3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201. Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9819 WP No. 42519 of 2016 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4; SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO REVISION NO.2/2007 FROM THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND SET- ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.05.2016 IN REVISION NO.2/2007 VIDE ANNEX-A AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.K., MANGALORE DATED 16.10.2006 AT ANNEX-B WHEREIN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION, D.K. DATED 12.01.2005 AT ANNEX-C WHICH IN TURN HAS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR, PUTTUR, D.K., DATED 11.10.2003 AT ANNEX-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER The petition is filed challenging an order of regularisation passed in favour of the 1st respondent. This order of eviction has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9819 WP No. 42519 of 2016 Infact, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has recorded the finding that the petitioner herein was not able to substantiate his assertion that land in question was a kumki land. Moreover, the authorities have recorded a finding that the 1st respondent was in possession since 1967-68 and he had also constructed his residential house in the said property. 2. In my view and in the light of the finding of fact recorded by the authorities, that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession and there were no documents to establish that the petitioner had possession over the said land, there is no error in the order passed by Appellate Tribunal. I do find no reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61