- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8564 WP No. 36141 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 36141 OF 2024 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH H.M, S/O MANJAPPA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT HORANEBAILU, KELAGERE VILLAGE, MELIGE POST, MUTTURU HOBLI, THIRTHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. LAND GRANT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 94-A OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, THIRTHAHALLI SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432, BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, THIRTHALLI TALUK, THIRTHALLI, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8564 WP No. 36141 of 2024 SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432. 4. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER THIRTHALLI RANGE, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE FORM NO. 57 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ANN-B FOR GRANT OF 2 ACRES OF LAND IN SY. NO. 58 OF KELAKERE VILLAGE, MUTTURU HOBLI, THIRTHALLI TALUK, BY ISSUING THE WRIT IN THE NATURE MANDAMUS 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 in the captioned petition is seeking a mandamus alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.3-Tahasildar in not placing the petitioner's application filed in Form No.57 seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.58 of Kelakere village. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8564 WP No. 36141 of 2024 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. Perused the records. 3. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that the petitioner's application cannot be considered as the land in question is notified as a forest land. 4. The contention raised by the respondents is effectively refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who places strong reliance on the proceedings conducted by the Forest Settlement Officer under the provisions of the Forest Act. Upon due enquiry, the said authority has categorically determined that the land in question is not classified as forest land and, consequently, has excluded it from the proposal. This decision is evident from the proceedings recorded by the Forest Settlement Officer, which establishes that the petition land does not fall within the ambit of notified forest land. In light of this authoritative determination, any claim to the contrary lacks legal foundation and cannot be sustained. The findings of the Forest Settlement Officer, being the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8564 WP No. 36141 of 2024 outcome of a statutory process, carry significant weight and should be duly considered by the competent authorities while processing the petitioner's application. 5. Upon a thorough examination of the order issued by the Forest Settlement Officer, as reflected in Annexure-E, this Court finds that respondent No.3- Tahasildar has a clear obligation to undertake a spot inspection of the subject land and gather circumstantial evidence through the appropriate subordinate officers before forwarding the petitioner's application for consideration by respondent No.2-Land Grant Committee. The failure of respondent No.3-Tahasildar to adhere to this procedural requirement constitutes inaction on his part and amounts to non-compliance with the mandate prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 108CCC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1966 Rules’). The statutory framework necessitates that the Tahasildar discharges his duty by ensuring that a proper factual report is prepared and submitted for further - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8564 WP No. 36141 of 2024 consideration by the Land Grant Committee. Since respondent No.3-Tahasildar has not acted in accordance with the prescribed legal provisions, the petitioner has a valid legal right to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court, compelling the concerned authority to perform the statutory duty entrusted to it. Given the circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to issue a mandamus directing respondent No.3-Tahasildar to obtain the necessary inspection report and place it before respondent No.2-Land Grant Committee for due consideration. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar is hereby directed to secure spot inspection by following the procedure mandated under sub-rule 3 of 108CCC of the 1966 Rules and place the petitioner's - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8564 WP No. 36141 of 2024 application before respondent No.2-Land Grant Committee for further course of action; iii. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar is hereby directed not to take any precipitate action till the petitioner's application is considered by respondent No.2-Land Grant Committee; iv. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three moths from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK