- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5177 WP No. 25811 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.25811 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. RAMACHANDRA S/O GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK PIN CODE-562 110 2. MANJULA W/O GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 110 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SUDHINDRA S A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU -560001 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5177 WP No. 25811 of 2024 2. REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE- 562110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.09.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND TO ISSUE SAGUVALI CHIT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS 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 petitioners are seeking mandamus against Tahasildar alleging that there is inaction on the part of Tahasildar, who has failed to issue Saguvali Chit or Grant Certificate in the prescribed Form though the Committee has recommended to regularize the petitioners' unauthorized occupation over the petition land. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5177 WP No. 25811 of 2024 2. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that the Tahasildar needs to examine the veracity of the alleged recommendation made by the Committee. She would point out that after summary enquiry, the Tahasildar will proceed further in terms of procedure mandate under Rule 108CCC Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short 'Rules, 1966'). 3. The records presently submitted before this Court, on the face of it, support the petitioners' claim that a recommendation has been made in their favor. However, this recommendation is strongly contested by the State. Given this dispute, it becomes imperative for the Tahsildar to examine the matter in accordance with the legal framework established under Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1966. Specifically, the Tahsildar must scrutinize the recommendation allegedly made by the Land Grant Committee and determine its authenticity before proceeding with the issuance of the Certificate of Grant or Saguvali Chit in the prescribed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5177 WP No. 25811 of 2024 format. Since the State has raised objections regarding the existence and validity of the recommendation, the Tahsildar has a duty to obtain the original records, verify their contents, and ascertain whether the Land Grant Committee has indeed made such a recommendation. Only upon such verification can the Tahsildar take further action in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. 4. While it is necessary for the Tahsildar to scrutinize the authenticity of the recommendation purportedly made by the Land Grant Committee, such an exercise must be conducted in a fair, impartial, and expeditious manner. The process of verification should not be misused as a means to unduly delay or deny the petitioner’s rightful claim. The duty of the Tahsildar is not only to ascertain the genuineness of the recommendation but also to ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to undue hardship, procedural delays, or administrative arbitrariness. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5177 WP No. 25811 of 2024 5. It must be emphasized that the examination of records should be carried out strictly within the framework of the law and should not be influenced by extraneous considerations. If the recommendation by the Land Grant Committee is found to be genuine, the Tahsildar must act without hesitation and proceed with the issuance of the Certificate of Grant or Saguvali Chit in the prescribed format, as required under Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1966. 6. However, under the pretext of examining the authenticity of the recommendation, the Tahsildar must not adopt an approach that results in the petitioner being deprived of their legal rights. Any delay, unjustified skepticism, or arbitrary rejection of the recommendation would amount to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the verification process should be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring that the petitioner’s claim is not prejudiced due to bureaucratic delays or unwarranted procedural hurdles. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5177 WP No. 25811 of 2024 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The Tahsildar is directed to immediately secure the original records pertaining to the proceedings of the Land Grant Committee, with due consideration to the documents submitted by the petitioners, particularly those evidenced in Annexure-G. (iii) Upon conducting a summary inquiry, if the Tahsildar is satisfied that a recommendation has indeed been made by the Land Grant Committee, he shall be duty- bound to act upon such recommendation in accordance with Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1966. (iv) If the records establish the existence of a valid recommendation, the Tahsildar shall proceed to issue the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5177 WP No. 25811 of 2024 Certificate of Grant or Saguvali Chit in the prescribed format without any further delay. (v) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6