- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32491 WP No. 21630 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 21630 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K. B. PAPIREDDY S/O LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAVARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK – 562 101, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARTHIK B. Y., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- TAHSILDAR, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32491 WP No. 21630 of 2025 RESPONDENT-AUTHORITY IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FORM NO.53 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE- G AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents. 2. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner was before this Court along with certain other petitioners in W.P.Nos.46717-46720/2019 and this Court by order dated 19.11.2019 directed the Committee for regularization of unauthorised occupation to consider the petitioner's application filed in Form No.53 for regularization of unauthorised occupation. However, the Tahsildar, Chikkaballapur Taluk issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-G dated 16.11.2021 rejecting the application on the ground that the land in question is within the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32491 WP No. 21630 of 2025 prohibited distance of 5 kilometers from the boundary of the Chickaballapur City Municipal Council. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has held in several writ petitions that the distance has to be measured, having regard to the geographical boundary of the Municipality/Corporation etc., as on the date of the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahasildar has issued the impugned endorsement, illegally without placing the application before the Committee for reconsideration in terms of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 5. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, there is a direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner that the application has to be reconsidered by the Committee by holding a fresh enquiry having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the matter of measuring the distance. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32491 WP No. 21630 of 2025 Tahsildar was duty bound to place the application before the Committee for re-consideration and therefore, the Tahasildar could not have issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the application. Secondly, the Committee is also required to take note of the fact that the petitioner claims to have first filed the application seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation in the year 1998. 6. This Court, in the case of Sri.Ashwathappa and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.2411/2022 dated 18.02.2022 has held that at any rate such applications cannot be rejected on the ground that the lands are within the prohibited distance as contemplated in Rule 108-CC and Rule 108-CCC of the Rules read with Section 94A(4) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It was directed that the distance shall be measured as per the geographical jurisdiction of the local authority, as it was on the date of the application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32491 WP No. 21630 of 2025 filed by the petitioner and not on the date when the application is taken up for consideration. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure - G issued by respondent-Tahasildar, Chickballapura Taluk is hereby quashed and set aside. The Tahasildar is directed to place the application of the petitioner before the Committee, as directed by the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration, in the light of the observations made by this Court and having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri.Ashwathappa (supra). The application shall be placed before the Committee as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent No.2-Committee shall consider the applications and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months thereafter. Ordered accordingly. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32491 WP No. 21630 of 2025 Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv CT: UR