- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44693 WP No. 29952 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 29952 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAGARAJU S/O RAMEGOWDA AGE ABOAUT 51 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573116 2. SRI ANNEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTTRICT 573116 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. LAKSHMI G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MS BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44693 WP No. 29952 of 2025 2. THE TAHSILDAR CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSANN DISTRICT 573116 3. THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY ITS SECRETAY 573116 4. THE ASST COMMISSIONER CHANNARAYAPATANA SUB DIVISION CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT 573116 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 573116 6. NADA KACAHERI REP BY ASSISTANT TAHASHILDAR CHANNARAYAPATNA UDAYAPURA HASSAN DISTRICT 573116 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ANNX-K THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-6 DTD. 16.08.2025 REGARDING SY.NO.81 SEPARATE BLOCK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44693 WP No. 29952 of 2025 NO.81A AND 81B OF DODDAKARADE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the correctness of notice at Annexure-K, whereby the petitioners occupation is considered to be an encroachment on Government Property in Sy.No.81. The petitioners have called upon to vacate within seven days, failing which, action would be taken under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application for regularization of the petitioners are still pending consideration. It is pointed out that on the previous occasion in certain proceedings connected with the same application in W.P.No.33288-89/2014, the Court had granted protection of possession reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44693 WP No. 29952 of 2025 3. It is submitted that an appeal is filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which has not only set aside the grant made by the Government but also remanded the matter to the concerned authorities to dispose of, Form No.53 of the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that pursuant to such order passed in Revenue Appeal.No.49/2019 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Authorities have not yet disposed of the application. The learned counsel to the petitioners specifically asserts that petitioners are in possession and the matter to be looked into by the authorities. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is one of record and in so far as application of the petition, no decision is yet taken. It is further submitted that proceedings for eviction appears to be premature. 6. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44693 WP No. 29952 of 2025 7. Must be noticed that, in terms of the order of the Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No. 49/2019, the challenge of the petitioners to the earmarking of land for burial ground with respect of the land where petitioner was in cultivation has been set aside by order of the Tribunal in the revenue appeal referred to above. The matter has been remitted to the respondent authorities to consider Form No. 53 filed by the petitioners. 8. In light of the stand of learned Additional Government Advocate that the said application is still pending consideration, the question of issuing notice at Annexure-K is premature and accordingly the same is set aside. Unless any decision is taken on Form No. 53 filed by the petitioner, question of resorting to eviction proceedings is impermissible and not legally tenable. It is also noticed that, if the Tahasildar is of the view that the application is eligible, needless to state, same is to be placed before the regularisation committee. However, if the application were to be ineligible, the Tahasildar with the necessary report is to place the same before the Deputy - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44693 WP No. 29952 of 2025 Commissioner in terms of the procedure under Rule 108(A) 3(1) (C). 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. It is needless to say that question of disturbing possession of the petitioner would arise only after rejection of application of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE HR-List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34