- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7277 WP No. 2942 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2942 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.G.LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HANDRA HALLII VILLAGE CHANARAYANA PATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.BABU RAO M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT OFFICE AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALAPURA SUB DIVISION Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7277 WP No. 2942 of 2025 DEVANA HALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203 4. THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.02.2024 IN NO.265319 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR, I.E. RESPONDENT NO.4, AS PER ANNEXURE-T 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, who is seeking regularization of his unauthorized occupation, is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 12.02.2024 issued by respondent No.4 – Tahasildar as per Annexure-T. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7277 WP No. 2942 of 2025 3. On closer examination of the endorsement, this Court is more than satisfied that the petitioner’s claim finds merits and therefore, the petitioner’s application filed seeking regularization needs consideration at the hands of the Land Grant Committee as provided under Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short ‘KLR Rules, 1966’). The impugned endorsement clearly substantiates that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land measuring 8 guntas in Sy. No.109 of Handralli Village, Devanahalli Taluk. Further, it substantiates that the petitioner belongs to depressed class. An endorsement is issued applying 18 kilometers radius. 4. The said issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the catena of judgments. The issue that requires consideration at the hands of this Court is; Whether respondent No.4 – Tahasildar could have issued an impugned endorsement by applying 18 kilometer radius? My answer is emphatically no. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7277 WP No. 2942 of 2025 5. As the petitioner’s application dates back to 1988, this Court is of the view that 18 kilometer radius cannot be applied at this juncture. The said issue is given a quietus by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.58789/2016. The relevant paragraph reads as under; "11. It is thus apparent from the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner based on the report obtained from the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD that distance between the boundary line of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as it existed earlier that is to say as on 1.4.1990, the date on which unauthorized occupation of the Government land was to be reckoned for regularization was more than 18 kms. from the outer periphery of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. 12. It is true, jurisdiction of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike was later extended after the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike was established. It may be that from the expanded boundary line, if the distance is reckoned, location of the two lands in the two villages may be within 18 kms. but that is not the criteria to be adopted. Section 94A provides for regularization of unauthorized occupation of government land. This provision was introduced by Act No.2 of 1991 w.e.f. 20.3.1991. Sub clause (4) of Section 94A provides that subject to such Rules as may be prescribed, any person liable to be evicted under sub section 2A of section 94A and who had been in unauthorized occupation prior to 1.4.1990, if he satisfies the prescribed condition and makes within a period of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7277 WP No. 2942 of 2025 six months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act 1990 application for such grant in the prescribed form paying prescribed fees, shall be entitled for the land. Second proviso enacted to section 94A(4) states that no land shall be granted in the areas lying within the limits of cities and the city municipalities specified in column 2 of table therein and within the distance from such limits specified in the corresponding entries in column 3 thereof." 6. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, this Court is of the view that an endorsement issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-T is not at all sustainable. This Court is of the view that respondent No.4 – Tahasildar has misconceived the Notification issued by the State, which has to be prospectively applied. Since the application is of the year 1988, 2005 Notification is not applicable to the case on hand. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith place - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7277 WP No. 2942 of 2025 the petitioner’s application seeking regularization before the Land Grant Committee. (iii) The Land Grant Committee is hereby directed to hold an enquiry strictly in terms of the procedure adopted under Rule 108D of the KLR Rules, 1966 and shall pass appropriate orders without applying restrictions of 18 kilometer radius to the present case on hand. (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34