- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:104 WP No. 18754 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18754 OF 2024 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN: SRI.KADEGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DODDAHALLI KOPPALU HALEMYSURU HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DIST - 573210 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.R.P.SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, HOLENARASIPURA HOLENARASIPURA TQ HASSAN DIST - 573 210 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE TAHSILDAR HOLENARASIPURA TQ HASSAN - 573 210 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:104 WP No. 18754 of 2024 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR HALLIMYUSURU HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TQ HASSAN DIST - 573210 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 22.7.1991 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.53 FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNUATHORIZED CULTIVATION SY.NO.5, MEASURING 1 ACRE 23 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MARAHALLI KAVALU VILLAGE, HALIMYSURU HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TQ, HASSAN DISTRICT SUBMITTED AS PER ENDORSEMENT DTD 22.07.91 - ANNEXURE-A 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner claims to be a landless person and therefore, he is seeking regularization of the petition land bearing Sy. No.5 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Marahalli Kavalu Village, Hallimysuru Hobli, Holenarsipura Taluk, Hassan. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:104 WP No. 18754 of 2024 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents - Committee in not passing orders on an application, which is tendered way back in the year 1991. 3. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), referring to the records, has strongly resisted the prayer sought in the petition, citing numerous discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims. Specifically, the HCGP highlighted that there was no provision for filing Form No. 53 in the year 1991, which forms a critical basis of the petitioner’s assertions. It was submitted that Form No. 53 was introduced only in the year 2007-08, leading to significant doubts about the genuineness and credibility of the application purportedly submitted by the petitioner in 1991. This raises questions regarding the authenticity of the petitioner’s claim of having submitted such a form decades earlier. 4. Despite the above submissions, this Court has taken note of the documents produced by the petitioner, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:104 WP No. 18754 of 2024 particularly Annexure-A, which indicates that the petitioner’s application seeking regularization was indeed received by the office of respondent No. 3, the Tahasildar. The petitioner has approached this Court expressing apprehension that the respondents are likely to undertake precipitative actions to dispossess him from the land in question. He has contended that the respondents are initiating such measures without resolving the application he claims to have submitted for regularization. 5. While this Court acknowledges that there has been some degree of laxity on the petitioner’s part in not diligently following up on the application allegedly submitted on July 22, 1991, it is imperative for the respondents to scrutinize the available records. The respondents must ascertain the veracity and status of the application that the petitioner claims to have filed. If it is found that such an application is indeed pending before the relevant Committee, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to expeditiously examine the petitioner’s claims - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:104 WP No. 18754 of 2024 regarding unauthorized cultivation of the land in question and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the applicable legal framework. 6. It is also noted that there are discrepancies regarding the extent of the land for which regularization is sought. While the petitioner’s counsel attempted to address these inconsistencies by seeking oral permission from this Court to amend the extent of the land from 1 acre 23 guntas to 4 acres 20 guntas, this request is declined. However, the relevant Authorities are required to conduct a detailed inquiry into the petitioner’s claims, specifically focusing on the extents mentioned in the original application allegedly submitted in 1991. The Authorities shall base their findings and decisions on the records available and ensure that the claim is adjudicated fairly and in accordance with the law. 7. If it is determined that Form No.53, which the petitioner claims to have submitted in 1991, has been concocted and subsequently inserted into the records, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:104 WP No. 18754 of 2024 respondents are directed to initiate appropriate legal and disciplinary actions against those responsible for such forgery or manipulation of official documents. The petitioner, on his part, is required to substantiate his claim of having filed Form No. 53 in 1991 by providing credible evidence to demonstrate how such a submission was possible, given the contention of the authorities that Form No. 53 was only introduced in 2007-08. The petitioner must reconcile this glaring discrepancy and explain the circumstances under which this specific form was allegedly submitted well before its introduction. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish the authenticity of his application and the form relied upon by producing corroborative records, such as contemporaneous correspondence, receipts, or endorsements from the relevant authorities, which would substantiate his claim. Any failure to provide such evidence or to satisfactorily explain the anomaly will lead to an adverse inference being drawn against the petitioner, and appropriate action - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:104 WP No. 18754 of 2024 will be initiated as per law to uphold the integrity of the records and the sanctity of the legal process. 8. With these above observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to secure records pertaining to Sy. No.5 and shall also verify genuineness of the application submitted way back in the year 1991. After conducting proper enquiry, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six months. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22