- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.780 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVA PRASAD S/O LATE SHEENA, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT DOOR NO.11/80 (A) 1, PRANTHYA VILLAGE, KODANGALLU, MOODUBIDRI TALUK, D K DISTRICT – 574 197 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANJAY MIRANDA S/O LATE PETER RICHARD MIRANDA, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT MIRANDA OIL MILL, CHURCH CROSS ROAD, NARAVI, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTRICT – 574 109 2. THE TAHSILDAR MANGALURU TALUK, GROUND FLOOR, D C OFFICE, MANGALURU D K - 575 001 Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU, I FLOOR, D C OFFICE, MANGALURU, D K -575 001 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D K DISTRICT, II FLOOR, D C OFFICE, MANGALURU, D K – 575 001 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R2, R3, R4 & R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.12.2019 IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.30452/2012 (KLR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal by the respondent under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 03.12.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30452 of 2012, where under the petition filed by respondent No.1, was allowed and the proceedings of the Regularization Committee dated 16.02.2004 and issuance of Saguvali Chit dated 26.02.2004, vide Annexures-J and K, respectively are set- aside and all the subsequent orders, thereon were declared as void and the matter was remitted to Committee for fresh consideration of the appellant's application in accordance with law, strictly following the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules. Parties are referred as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge, for easy reference. 2. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 Appellant – respondent No.1 filed Form No. 50 under Section-108A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short ‘Act of 1964’), for regularization of unauthorized occupation of land measuring 3.50 acres in Survey No. 64/1A1A. The Committee subsequent to filing of the application, by an order dated 16.02.2004 granted an extent of 2.60 acres in 64/1A1C and 0.45 acres in 64/1A1A. The reason for the grant as could be gathered from the order was, the objector to the application by first respondent had withdrawn the objection. Except the said observation, nothing else could be found as the reason for grant of land in two survey numbers supra by the Committee. In terms of the order passed by the Committee, Saguvali Chit came to be issued in favour of respondent No.1 by the concerned authority. 3. The petitioner – respondent No.1 herein called in question regularization and issuance of Saguvali Chit in favour of respondent No.1 on three main grounds: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 i) Firstly, that in an earlier proceedings which has gone against the petitioner, the then Special Deputy Commissioner in respect of land in Survey No. 64/1A1C, had given a clear finding, that the land is in very close proximity to town and it is abutting to the main road and therefore it could be better utilized for non-agricultural public purposes. ii) Secondly, the first respondent has not made any application in the prescribed Form for grant of land in Survey No. 64/1A1C and; iii) Thirdly, as per Sub-Rule-3 of Rule 108-CC of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, (‘Rules of 1966’ for short), which prescribes that, the authorized officer on receipt of the documents from the Thasildar, make a spot inspection, examine the documentary and circumstantial evidence, determine the eligibility or otherwise and send a report to the Secretary of the Committee, within 3 months from the date of receipt of such documents. The Thasildar - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 on receipt of such report in turn, lay the same before the Committee and on the order of regularization shall issue a Saguvali chit in terms of the order. Whereas in the case on hand, no such procedure has been followed. The Thasildar as well as the prescribed authority and the committee have failed to take note of the fact that the land falls within 2 kilometers from the Town Municipal, Moodabidare, as such, in view of an embargo under Section-94A of the Act of 1964, the land cannot be granted. 4. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 appeared and contested the matter. Upon hearing the petitioner, as well as respondent no.1 and the Government, the learned Single Judge has found that in the application vide Annexure-H filed for regularization under Form No.50, the respondent No.1 has prayed for the regularization of land measuring 3.50 acres in Survey No.64/1A1A. In the proceedings, the Committee has recorded that the objector had withdrawn the objections and agreed for the grant in favour of first respondent. Therefore, the land - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 measuring 2.60 acres in survey No.64/1A1C and 0.45 acres in survey No.64/1A1A has been ordered to be granted/regularized in favour of first respondent. 5. The learned Single Judge further found that, nothing comes from the record as to whether the procedure contemplated under Sub-Rule-3 of Rule 108-CC of Rules of 1966 is followed. That apart, the first respondent has not filed any application seeking for regularization of land in Survey No. 64/1A1C. The first respondent had sought for regularization of land in survey No. 64/1A1A. No reasons are forthcoming from the order passed by the Committee allotting land measuring 2.60 acres in Survey No.64/1A1C. The application at Annexure- H states that Form No.50 is filed seeking for regularization of land measuring 3.50 acres in Survey No.64/1A1A. In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the regularization of unauthorized occupation is required to be made to the bonafide occupants, after complying the procedure strictly, as laid down in the Act of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 1964 and Rules thereon. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the order impugned herein was passed, quashing the order of the Committee, as well as the issuance of Saguvali Chit and all further proceedings were held to be void and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the application, in strict adherence to the procedure contemplated under Act of 1964 and rules thereon. 6. Heard learned counsel Sri.Prasanna V.R., appearing for the appellant. Sri. A.Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 7. Sri.Prasanna vehemently submitted that respondent no. 1 has no locus-standi to question the order passed by the Land Grant Committee in favour of the appellant, as he has lost his case for allotment in respect of the land bearing Survey No.64/1A1C in an earlier - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 proceedings upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. He has further submitted that subsequent to filing of the application, there was an amendment brought to the provisions of Section-94A of Act of 1964, covering the land coming within the purview of the Municipality that is within the radius of 2 kilometers. The said amendment is not applicable to the application filed prior to the amendment. He has also submitted that though he has filed application seeking for regularization of land in survey No.64/1A1A in respect of land measuring 3.50 acres, after inspection it was found that the appellant - respondent no. 1 is in possession of 3.60 acres land but in two survey numbers i.e., an extent of 2.60 acres in survey no. 64/1A1C and 0.45 acres in Survey no. 64/1A1A. Accordingly, on the inspection report the Committee after taking notice of the same and also in view of withdrawal of the objection filed by an objector, regularized the occupation in favour of respondent no. 1, in accordance with law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 8. The petitioner is neither an objector nor a rival claimant to the land, though he has staked a claim earlier, he lost his case till the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned Single Judge has erred in not considering these aspects of the matter. In that view of the matter, the appeal be allowed and the order impugned be set-aside. 9. Sri. A.Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.1, with all vehemence submitted that the application filed, is in respect of a particular survey number claiming the land in the said survey number. In view of non-filing of application claiming regularization in Survey No. 64/1A1C, the Committee has committed a serious error. That apart, the land comes within the prohibited area of 2 kilometers. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration of all these facts, with a well- reasoned order allowed the petition, setting-aside the order passed by the committee and the issuance of saguvali chit holding all further proceedings subsequent thereto, as void and remanded the matter for fresh - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 consideration on the application submitted by respondent no. 1, in strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1964 and the Rules thereon, which is absolutely in accordance with law and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court and as such sought to dismiss the appeal. 10. Learned A.G.A., Smt.Saritha Kulkarni submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law, as there is no application submitted for regularization of land in survey No.64/1A1C and there is nothing forthcoming in the order, the basis on which the Committee resolved to grant land in Survey No.64/1A1C to an extent of 2.60 acres and in view of the embargo under Section-94A of Act of 1964, the application is not maintainable, as such sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire writ appeal papers, the only question which arose for our consideration is: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 “Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the petition, by quashing the order of the Committee and issuance of saguvali chit, declaring all the further proceedings thereon, as void and remanding the matter to the Committee for fresh disposal? Our answer to the above point for consideration is in ‘affirmative’ and against the appellant for the following reason. 12. It is not in dispute that the application / Form No.50 at Annexure-H is filed for regularization of land measuring 3.50 acres in Survey No.64/1A1A. The committee in order at Annexure-K, except stating the measurement of land in two survey numbers and that the objector has withdrawn the objection, proceeded to grant / regularise the land in two survey numbers measuring 2.60 acres in 64/1A1C and 0.45 acres in 64/1A1A. Nothing is forthcoming from the order, in respect of the procedure laid down, especially - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 under Rule-3 of Rule 108-CC of Rules of 1966. Taking note of flaws in the order of grant and the application in Form No. 50 at Annexure-H, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed petition and quashed the order stated supra remanding the matter for a fresh disposal on the application filed by respondent No.1 in strict adherence to the procedures prescribed under the provisions of Act of 1964 and Rules of 1966 thereon. 13. So far as the argument of Sri.Prasanna that the petitioner has no locus-standi to question the order passed by the Committee, has no legs to stand for the reason that once an illegality is brought before this Court, this Court acting under Article-226 of Constitution of India, can take cognizance of a blatant illegality, being the Court of record, correct the same by setting at naught the illegality. The learned Single Judge exercising power under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India, has rightly found that there is blatant illegality, as no reason found in the order - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 passed by the Committee for grant/regularization of land in two survey numbers, which was even not sought for. 14. So far as the arguments of Sri.Prasanna, that there are any number of judgments passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, holding that even if there is slightest mistake in describing the survey numbers or division numbers, in that event, the authorities after the inspection if found the possession of the party in respect of the land, can correct it, while regularizing / grant of land and further submission that the amendment came subsequent to the filing of the application prohibiting the applications in respect of the lands coming within the purview of area described under the Section, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not out- rightly rejected the entire application. The learned Single Judge having found that the order passed and saguvali chit issued are not in terms of the procedure laid down under the provisions of Sub Rule-3 under the provisions of Act of 1964 and Rules 1966 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 thereon, quashed the order and issuance of saguvali chit and declared all subsequent proceedings thereon as void and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, for consideration of the application filed by respondent no. 1 afresh in strict adherence to the procedures laid down under the provisions of Act of 1964 and Rules of 1966, balancing the Justice. 15. Since the matter is remanded back to the committee, the respondent no. 1 can place all the decisions which he wants to rely, in respect of his contention that a mistake in describing the survey numbers, division, etc., and argue on the amendment as not applicable to him, before the Committee. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmities in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal filed calling in question calling in question order dated 03.12.2019, passed by - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24297-DB WA No. 780 of 2021 the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30452 of 2012, sans merit, fails and is dismissed. ii) Respondent no. 1 is at liberty to place all the material and the judgments which he wants to rely on before the Committee, in support of his application, all contentions are left open. iii) In the above facts and circumstances, costs made easy. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43