- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3592 WP No. 101316 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101316 OF 2025 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN: 1. KUMAR S/O BASALINGAPPA KILLEDAR AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGARALA VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. MALLAPPA S/O BASALINGA KILLEDAR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGARALA VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR RAIBAG TALUK, DISTRICT BELAGAVI -591317. 4. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION, REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY, RAIBAG-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25-9-2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, REJECTING THE PETITIONERS ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.25 15:12:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3592 WP No. 101316 of 2025 APPLICATION FOR REGULARIZATION, AS PER ANNEXURES E AND E1 & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4. 2. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25-9-2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent, rejecting the Petitioners’ application for regularization, as per Annexures E and E1. b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No: 2 to consider the Petitioners application in Form No. 57 for regularization of unauthorized cultivation afresh, in accordance with the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961, Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1966, and the Government Guidelines issued vide Gazette Notification dated 18-09-2020, after affording the Petitioners a fair opportunity of hearing. c) Pass any other appropriate writ, order, or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The claim of petitioners is that they have been in unauthorized cultivation of the land bearing Sy.No.120/*/* measuring 3 acre 30 guntas of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3592 WP No. 101316 of 2025 Nagaral village from the last 35 years and as such they had filed Form No.57 for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation. The 2nd respondent -Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-E and E1 has rejected the Form No.57 filed by the petitioners on the ground that the Tahashildar has submitted a report that the petitioners are not eligible. It is challenging the same petitioners are before this Court. 4. The submission of learned counsel Sri Laxman T. Mantagani appearing for petitioners is that once the Revenue Inspector had recommended the Tahashildar ought to have accepted the same and not have submitted a contrary proposal and further the Revenue Inspectors recommendation has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order. Further more, he submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been passed without furnishing the Tahashildar’s report to the petitioners and providing opportunity to make their - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3592 WP No. 101316 of 2025 submission in relation thereto as such he submits that the impugned orders are required to be quashed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4 and perused the papers. 6. Though the petitioners claim that the Revenue Inspector had recommended the regularization of the unauthorized of the petitioners in terms of the Annexure-D and D1. A perusal thereof does not indicate any reference number or date. Insofar as the order of the Deputy Commissioner, placing reliance on the report of the Tahashildar, Annexure- E also does not refer to date of the report of the Tahashildar except to contend that there is a recommendation made by the Tahashildar, that petitioners are not eligible. Be that as it may, this report of the Tahashildar has not been furnished to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3592 WP No. 101316 of 2025 the petitioners and they have not been provided an opportunity to rebut the said report. 7. As rightly contended by Sri Laxman Mantagani learned counsel for the petitioners there was an opportunity to be granted to the petitioners to counter the recommendation of the thasildhar before an order was passed against them. In that view of the matter, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) A writ of certiorari is issued, the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexures-E and E1 are quashed. (iii) The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. (iv) The 2nd respondent is directed to furnish report of the Tahashildar to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3592 WP No. 101316 of 2025 petitioners to enable them to submit their written reply thereto. (v) The 2nd respondent shall also ascertain veracity of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and take same into consideration while deciding the matter in accordance with law. (vi) In view of disposal of petition, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34