- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 52874 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI K RAMESH ACHARY S/O LATE SUBRAYA ACHARY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KADESHWALYA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT 574 325. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1(a) SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O LATE K. RAMESH ACHARY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 1(b) SRI MOHANA S/O LATE K. RAMESH ACHARY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 1(c) YASHODHARA S/O LATE K. RAMESH ACHARY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 1(d) SMT. LATHA D/O LATE K. RAMESH ACHARY W/O DR. VISHWANATHACHARYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 1(e) SRI SRIPATHI S/O LATE K. RAMESH ACHARY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 ALL ARE RESIDING AT KANDIGA HOUSE KADESHWALYA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 325. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K DISTRICT MANGALORE - 575 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION MANGALORE 575 001. 4. THE ADDL. COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UN-AUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF THE LANDS, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT 574 219. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. SRI. HONNAPPA NAIK S/O SRI RAM NAIK AGED: MAJOR R/AT KADESHWALYA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 235. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 5(a) SMT. VINAYA W/O LATE HONNAPPA NAIK AGE: MAJOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 5(b) SMT. HITHALAKSHMI D/O LATE HONNAPPA NAIK AGE: MAJJOR 5(c) SRI. RANJITH S/O LATE HONNAPPA NAIK AGE:MAJOR 5(d) SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE HONNAPPA NAIK AGE: MAJOR 5(e) SMT. AKSHATHA S/O LATE HONNAPPA NAIK AGE:MAJOR 5(a) TO (e) ARE ALL R/AT KADESHWALYA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 235. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5(a) TO R5(e) IS SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2018 IN REVISION PETITION NO.74/2013 [REVENU] PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.03.2018 in R.P.No.74/2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as per Annexure - A, order dated 09.07.2013 in C.Dis:RAP:251/2006-07 passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure - B. The petitioners also sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 - Regularization Committee to consider their applications dated 19.01.1999 as per Annexure-E. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 - K. Ramesh Achary, who is the husband of petitioner No.1(a) and father of petitioner Nos.1(b) to 1(e) is the owner of Kadim Warga lands bearing Sy.Nos.59/1, 59/2, 59/3, 59/4 and 59/5 of Kadeshwalya Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, which is totally measured 3.99 acres. The abutting government lands bearing Sy.Nos.47, 56, 58/1A (58/A), 66 and 67 are the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 Kumki privilege to Kadim Warga to K.Ramesh Achary and he is using the Kumki privilege. He also raised some coconut and cashew trees in the said land. Accordingly, he filed Form No.53 under Section 94-B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 seeking regularization before the Regularization Committee in the year 1999 as per Annexure-E. 3. However, a rival claim was made by respondent No.5-Sri.Honnappa Naik in respect of same land for regularization and the Committee has passed an order dated 06.07.2001 by regularizing the land in favour of respondent No.5 without considering the rival claim made by K. Ramesh Achary. The said order has been challenged by K. Ramesh Achary before the Assistant Commissioner in C.Dis.RA.3/2001-02. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Committee and remitted the matter back to the Committee for fresh consideration of rival claims. On remand, the Regularization Committee without complying - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 the order and without conducting any such enquiry in respect of rival claims, passed an order dated 05.04.2003 as per Annexure-D by regularizing the land in Sy.No.67/1B measuring 31 cents of Kadeshwalaya Village, Bantwal Taluk in favour respondent No.5. However, the said order has been once again challenged by K. Ramesh Achary before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner has passed an order dated 25.10.2006 as per Annexure-C by affirming the order passed by the Committee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, K. Ramesh Achary approached the Deputy Commissioner in C.Dis:RAP:251/06-07. However, the Deputy Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal filed by him by affirming the order passed by the Committee and the Assistant Commissioner. Against aforesaid orders, K. Ramesh Achary approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'KAT') in R.P.No.74/2013. However, the KAT has dismissed the appeal filed by him and affirmed the order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners so also the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Committee, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have totally erred while passing the impugned orders without conducting any enquiry in respect of rival claim made by K. Ramesh Achary in respect of subject land. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Committee clearly depicts that without considering Form No.53 filed by the K. Ramesh Achary, those orders had been passed. He also contended that the portion of the subject land was granted in favour one Jainabi and the said order has been challenged by K. Ramesh Achary before this Court in W.P.No.18555/2012 and this Court vide order dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 02.01.2023 has set aside the order passed by the Committee, the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT remitted the matter to the Regularization Committee for fresh enquiry by considering the rival claim made by the K. Ramesh Achary in respect of subject lands. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench squarely applies to the facts and circumstance of this case and accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and remit the matter back to the Committee. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that despite granting sufficient opportunity to K. Ramesh Achary and his legal heirs, they have failed to prove their possession by placing relevant documents. In such circumstance, the Committee, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT have rightly dismissed the claim made by K. Ramesh Achary and his legal heirs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the records made available before this Court. 9. On careful perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Committee and the Assistant Commissioner, it could be gathered that both the authorities have not considered the rival claim made by K. Ramesh Achary by conducting enquiry as contemplated under law. Nevertheless, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case cited supra by considering the similar orders passed by the authorities has remitted the matter to the Regularization Committee for fresh disposal by considering the rival claim and extending opportunity to the parties. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Regularization Committee by considering the rival claims of the petitioners and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51396 WP No. 52874 of 2018 respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) by extending opportunity to them to place the relevant documents in support of their claim. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.03.2018 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-A, order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B, order dated 25.10.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C, order dated 05.04.2003 passed by the Regularization Committee vide Annexure-D respectively are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Regularization Committee - respondent No.4 for fresh disposal in accordance with the above observations. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22