- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34298 WP No. 18042 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 18042 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR. NARAYANA K S/O. LATE DOOMA MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT KOLAMBE HOUSE, KODMAN VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 143 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y RAJENDRA PRASAD SHETTY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34298 WP No. 18042 of 2025 2. THE TAHASILDAR, BANTWAL TALUK, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -574153 3. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TAHASILDAR, BANTWAL TALUK, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574153. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH, DIRECTION OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. EDS/MAHITI HAKKU/CR/NO. 745/2024-25 DATED 13.03.2025- ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY REJECTING THE FORM NO.50 AND 53, CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZING HIS UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.46-1A, 0.60 CENTS SITUATED AT KODMAN VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34298 WP No. 18042 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Committee for regularization of un-authorized occupation rejected the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.53 on the ground that the land in question falls within 10 kms distance from the boundary of the Mangaluru City Corporation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru Sub-division and the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal by order dated 15.09.2022, while remanding the matter back to the Committee for reconsideration having regard to the law laid down by this Court. Learned counsel submits that the Tahasildar has issued the impugned endorsement, illegally without placing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34298 WP No. 18042 of 2025 application before the Committee for reconsideration in terms of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 3. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, there is a direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner that the application has to be reconsidered by the Committee by holding a fresh enquiry having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the matter of measuring the distance. The Tahsildar was duty bound to place the application before the Committee for re-consideration and therefore, the Tahasildar could not have issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the application. Secondly, the Committee is also required to take note of the fact that the petitioner claims to have first filed the application seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation in the year 1982 and thereafter, two applications were again filed by the petitioner, one in the year 1991 in Form No.50 and other in the year 1999 in Form No.53. 4. This Court, in the case of Sri.Ashwathappa and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34298 WP No. 18042 of 2025 W.P.No.2411/2022 dated 18.02.2022 has held that at any rate such applications cannot be rejected on the ground that the lands are within the prohibited distance as contemplated in Rule 108-CC and Rule 108-CCC of the Rules read with Section 94A(4) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It was directed that the distance shall be measured as per the geographical jurisdiction of the local authority, as it was on the date of the application filed by the petitioner and not on the date when the application is taken up for consideration. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure - A issued by respondent No.2-Tahasildar, Bantwal Taluk is hereby quashed and set aside. The Tahasildar is directed to place the application of the petitioner before the Committee, as directed by the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration, in the light of the observations made by this Court and having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri.Ashwathappa (supra). The application shall be placed before the Committee as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34298 WP No. 18042 of 2025 copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent No.3-Committee shall consider the applications and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19