- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6041 WP No. 29470 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 29470 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATA NARASAMMA, W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT KODIYALA, KARENAHALLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GEETHA A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO ISSUE ENDORSEMENT TO PAY THE CALCULATED PREMIUM IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION BY CONSIDERING THE Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6041 WP No. 29470 of 2024 REPRESENTATIONS DATED 08.07.2024 GIVEN TO THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WP. 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 This petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.2-Tahasildar in not placing the petitioner's application filed in Form No.53 before the Land Grant Committee (for short, 'committee'). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner is asserting that he is an unauthorized occupant to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.483, situated at Kodiyala Karenahalli village, Bidadi hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District. The petitioner's husband has tendered an application in prescribed Form No.53 seeking regularization. Though application is filed in 1999, respondent No.2-Tahasildar, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6041 WP No. 29470 of 2024 has failed to discharge his duties in not placing the application along with relevant reports before the committee. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 108ccc of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, mandates that the Tahasildar shall secure spot inspection and other circumstantial evidence to determine the eligibility of the applicant seeking regularization. 4. The petitioner specifically contends that though reports are secured by the Tahasildar, they are not placed before the committee for further course of action. The case on hand clearly demonstrates complete laxness on the part of respondent No.2-Tahasildar. This is a clear case of deriliction of duty. Under the above said rules, the Tahasildar was required to place the application tendered by the petitioner's husband along with relevant documents. The petitioner has a legal right to seek adjudication at the hands of the committee. Therefore, this is a fit case where a mandamus lies. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6041 WP No. 29470 of 2024 5. For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondent No.2-Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith place the application filed in Form No.53 along with spot inspection and circumstantial evidence for further course of action. iii. On receipt of application, the committee shall hold an enquiry as contemplated under Section 108D of the 1966 Rules; iv. This exercise shall be accomplished by the committee within a period of four months from the date of receipt of report from the Tahasildar. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK CT: BHK