- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13289 WP No. 5670 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5670 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. NARASIMHARAJU S/O. POOJA HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A YEDEHALLI SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU -562111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA GOWDA B R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI-562 110 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLPURA SUB-DIVISION Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13289 WP No. 5670 of 2026 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203 4. THE TAHSILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.SESHU., HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE L.N.D.C.R. /188/2017-18 DATED 10/02/2026 VIDE ANNX-Q AND DIRECT THE R4 TO ISSUE HAKKU PATHRA OF THE DWELLING HOUSE BUILT IN SY. NO. 61, MEASURING 0.01 GUNTAS LAND SITUATED AT YEDEHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER On 25.02.2026 the following order was passed: “Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to serve copies of the petition along with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13289 WP No. 5670 of 2026 annexures on the learned Additional Government Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite an order being passed by this Court in WP No. 21285/2021 dated 04.04.2024 directing the respondent- Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk, Benglauru Rural District to place the application of the petitioner along with his report before the Committee for regularization of unauthorised occupation for expeditious consideration of the application, the Tahsildar has now issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-Q dated 10.02.2026 declining to place the application of the petitioner before the Committee. Learned counsel submits that it is clear from the impugned endorsement that the Tahsildar has mistaken the fact that the application filed by the petitioner is seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation in Survey No.61 but the Tahsildar is speaking of Survey No.66 which the petitioner is unconcerned with. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13289 WP No. 5670 of 2026 Re-list this matter on 04.03.2026 to enable the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate to secure instructions and make submission.” 2. Today, the learned High Court Government Pleader has filed a memo along with a revised endorsement dated 03.03.2026 issued by the respondent- Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk, assigning fresh reasons for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner. It is now stated that the petitioner is not entitled for grant under Section 94-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, since the petitioner is the owner of a residential site bearing No.2104, Property No.2089/1, measuring 30 x 40 ft. situated at Somapura Village, Somapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has purchased the property in the name of his wife under a registered sale deed dated 10.05.2016. Learned HCGP submits while pointing out to the provisions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13289 WP No. 5670 of 2026 contained in Section 94-C(iii) of the Act, which provides that no land shall be granted if the person who has applied for grant of such land or any member of his family owns any building or site within the urban or rural areas in which the land for which application is made is situated. Copy of the sale deed is also annexed to the memo. 4. In view of the above, the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner cannot be faulted. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT:JL