- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5016 WP No. 33998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34127 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.33998 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.34127 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) IN WP NO.33998/2024 BETWEEN: SRI.BHARATH KUMAR K H S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT KESTHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THASHILDHAR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5016 WP No. 33998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34127 of 2024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.LND.CR/231/23-24 DATED 10.04.2024 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 34127/2024 BETWEEN: SRI.NANJEGOWDA @ NANJAPPA S/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT KESTHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -561203 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDAH BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THASHILDHAR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561203 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5016 WP No. 33998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34127 of 2024 THE ENDORSEMENT NO.LND.CR/234/23-24 DATED 10.04.2024 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, 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 in both cases are aggrieved by the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2, who has declined to mutate the petitioner’s name citing 2015 Circular indicating that the petition land falls within 5 kilometer radius from CMC and 18 kilometer from BBMP. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP. 3. This issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in an unreported judgment in W.P.No.4656/2023 and also reported judgment in the case of ZAMEER AHMED VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5016 WP No. 33998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34127 of 2024 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BENGALORE AND OTHERS1. 4. In the case on hand, the petitioners are seeking regularization of the land by tendering applications on 13.06.2022. The applications seeking regularization were considered and recommendations were made and the lands were accordingly granted vide Official Memorandum dated 06.06.2002. The Co-ordinate Bench in an analogous case has held as under and this Court deems it fit to cull out the relevant paragraphs. "7. It is not in dispute that insofar as the other beneficiaries of the Official Memorandum at Annexure-C i.e., at Sl. Nos.1, 2 and 4, mutation has been effected as it evidenced from the entries at Annexure-G. If that were to be so, petitioner cannot be singled out. Moreover, it is clear that the Circular imposing restrictions regarding the grant of saguvali chit with respect of the lands within 5 Kms. of the limit of City Municipal Council is passed on 29.09.2015 and that the Endorsement at Annexure-A being subsequent in 1 ILR 2003 KAR 169 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5016 WP No. 33998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34127 of 2024 point of time cannot have the effect of nullifying the earlier proceedings which were permissible as per law in force as on the date of passing of the Resolution recommending for regularization." 5. The Court, upon reviewing the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in an analogous case, is of the considered view that respondent No.2 – Tahasildar acted beyond his authority in issuing the impugned endorsements by citing the 2015 Notification. It is evident that the 2015 Notification, which introduced restrictions regarding a 5-kilometer radius within the City Municipality Council limits and an 18-kilometer radius from the BBMP boundary, cannot be applied retrospectively. The said notification must be considered as effective only from the date of its issuance and cannot govern applications submitted prior to its enforcement. 6. In the present case, the petitioner's father in W.P.No.33998/2024 and the petitioner in W.P.No.34127/2024 had tendered their respective applications before the enforcement of the 2015 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5016 WP No. 33998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34127 of 2024 Notification. Therefore, applying these restrictions retrospectively to their applications is legally untenable. The Tahasildar’s reliance on the 2015 Notification to reject the applications is misplaced, rendering the impugned endorsements illegal and liable to be quashed. Consequently, this Court holds that the 2015 Notification is inapplicable to the present matter, and any action taken based on it is devoid of legal sanctity. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The endorsements dated 10.04.2024 in both cases issued by respondent No.2 - Tahasildar as per Annexure-A are hereby quashed and set-aside. (iii) Respondent No.2 - Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith consider the petitioners representation dated 13.06.2022 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5016 WP No. 33998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34127 of 2024 and effect change of katha forthwith in the RTC pertaining to the petition land. (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26