- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41755 WP No. 26606 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 26606 OF 2016 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN: MRS. KUNJAMMA B.M. W/O MR. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.512/80, 18TH BLOCK, SUDHARSHAN EXTENSION, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT , MADIKERI - 571 217. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADIKERI DIVISION, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 217. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41755 WP No. 26606 of 2016 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADIKERI DIVISION, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 217. 4. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF AUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF LAND, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 217, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-4 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSAL OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.09.1996 AND FORM NO.53 OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.04.1999 FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF LAND IN QUESTION AT ANNEXURE-E & F RESPECTIVELY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41755 WP No. 26606 of 2016 ORAL ORDER The petitioner who is a former Tahsildar has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 04.09.1996 filed in Form No.53 and has sought for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land in question and certain auxiliary reliefs are also sought for. 2. The facts made out would reveal that the petitioner has been granted an extent of 0.02 acres (2 cents) at market value bearing Site No.512/80 within the limits of the City Municipal Council as is evidenced at Annexure-C. The allotment certificate (Hakku Pathra) came to be issued at Annexure-D on 27.12.1989. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, there is a land abutting her alloted site as demarcated in the sketch at Annexure-G1 and she seeks for grant of land surrounding her alloted site. The application in Form No.53 has been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41755 WP No. 26606 of 2016 filed on 29.04.1999. It is not in dispute that the application for grant of additional area around the petitioner's house was made on 29.04.1999, by which time property had come within the limits of the City Municipal Council. While Form-53 is filed in terms of Land Grant Rules and once the property comes within the limits of the Municipal Authority, the rules applicable to grant of property, grant of land within urban limits is applicable. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the provision for grant of property in urban limit would be Section 94CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short 'the Act') which was inserted by way of amendment on 12.01.2015. It is submitted that even if Section 94CC (iv) is taken note of, the petitioner already being a recipient of grant of land in urban area, cannot seek for additional grant as well. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bar under Section 94CC would be only as regards - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41755 WP No. 26606 of 2016 grant of land for more than one dwelling house, while in the present case the petitioner is seeking for grant of land encircling the petitioner's property and has not sought for grant of land for putting up of another dwelling house. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner is under the Land Grant Rules. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 7. The fact that the property around the petitioner's dwelling house has been demarcated in terms of Annexure-G2, is not in dispute. This property, grant of which is sought for, undisputedly falls within the limits of City Municipal Council. If that were to be so, question of considering regularisation in terms of the provision applicable to land outside the Municipal limits does not arise. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41755 WP No. 26606 of 2016 8. The provision of Section 94CC would apply insofar as grant of land in urban areas. It is to be noticed that the said provision was inserted by way of an amendment on 12.01.2015. It is clear that in terms of Section 94CC (iv), no person would be eligible for grant of land for more than one dwelling house. Even if it is to be construed that the application of the petitioner is to be examined in terms of Section 94CC of the Act, the right to claim grant, cannot have the effect of granting land beyond more than for one dwelling house. 9. The objective of Section 94CC (iv) is that the grant of Government land must be only for putting up of one dwelling house. If that were to be so, the contention of the petitioner that the land abutting her property may be also granted and would fall outside the restriction under Section 94CC (iv), cannot be accepted. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner is a recipient of the grant as is evidenced by the allotment letter at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41755 WP No. 26606 of 2016 Annexure-D as well as the order of grant at Annexure-C. If that were to be so, the petitioner is already a recipient of allotment of site, question of considering anything further would not arise keeping in mind the principle embodying under Section 94CC (iv) of the Act. 11. According, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as sought for and the petition is rejected. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR