- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.36224 OF 2024 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATHA N., S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O KUMBARA STREET PAVAGADA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561202. 2. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI W/O LATE RAMANJI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O KUMBARA STREET PAVAGADA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572132. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION MADHUGIRI TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572132. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 3. THE PRESIDENT LAND GRANT COMMITTEE PAVAGADA TALUK, PAVAGADA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572132. 4. THE SECRETARY AND TAHSILDAR LAND GRANT COMMITTEE PAVAGADA TALUK, PAVAGADA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RA NO.8/2009-2010 DATED 27.09.2023 IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI, I.E. 2ND RESPONDENT IN R.A. (A) NO.14/2007- 2008 DATED 16.03.2009 IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-B. THE AUTHORITIES AND THEY HAVE ISSUED AHAVALTHAKTHE SHOWING THAT THEY ARE NOT HAVING ANY LAND AND THE SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA takes notice for all the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner's mother Smt.Gangamma seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.322 of Pavagada Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru District without being considered by the Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation is rejected on 15.09.1992 at the hand of the Tahsildar on the ground that Smt.Gangamma had excess land in her possession and therefore, she was not entitled for grant. When the same was questioned before the Assistant Commissioner in RA (A) No.14/2007- 08, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners have questioned the order of Tahsildar without questioning the decision of the Committee. Further, when the petitioners approached the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 Deputy Commissioner invoking the Second Appeal remedy under Section 50, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner noticing that no information was placed by the petitioners regarding the land holdings of Smt.Gangamma at the relevant point of time. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner has also noticed the provisions contained in Rule 108-I(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and has held that since the lands are within the prohibited distance between Pavagada Town Municipality, the same cannot be granted to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel submits that on both aspects of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner have to be set aside while remitting the matter back for re-consideration. 4. Learned counsel submits that this Court has held in the case of Ashwathappa V/s State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.2411/2022 dated 18.02.2022 held that the distance between the lands in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 question, lands for which application have been filed for regularization have to be measured having regard to the geographical boundary of the local authority as on the date of the application and not when the application is taken up for consideration. Moreover, the rejection of the application at the hands of the Committee was not on the ground of prohibited distance. It was on the ground that Smt.Gangamma had excess land. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the appeal filed at the hands of the petitioners. 5. There is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for petitioners. The Committee which considered the application filed by the petitioner’s mother Smt.Gangamma rejected the application only on the ground that Smt.Gangamma had excess land and was not entitled for grant of lands under the provisions of Section 94-A read with Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. When that was the situation, it was not within the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to hold that the lands - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 are within the prohibited distance. Moreover, this Court has held in the said case of Ashwathappa (supra) that the distance has to be measured having regard to the geographical boundary of the local authority which was prevailing as on the date of the application. It is also clear from the fact that the Committee did not find that at the relevant point of time, i.e., in the year 1992, when the orders were passed, the distance between the land in question and the local authority was within the prohibited distance. Therefore, such a contention cannot be taken up at this point of time. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned orders at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner are quashed and set-aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 iii) The original order passed by the Committee on 15.09.1992 is also quashed and set-aside. iv) The matter stands remitted back to the Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation to afford an opportunity to the petitioners, to file necessary documents to show that Smt.Gangamma was not holding excess lands. v) The Committee shall consider the same and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. vi) The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent No.4-Committee on 25.09.2025 without waiting for further notice. vii) The respondent No.4-Committee shall take up the matter on that day and on further dates and ensure that the orders are passed as directed by this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36201 WP No. 36224 of 2024 viii) Learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16