- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17926-DB WA No. 1039 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1039 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RANGAMMA, D/O. LATE GAVIRANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT DODDAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 211. 2. D.G. RAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SUMANGALAMMA, W/O D.G. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 3. BHAGEERATHAMMA, D/O LATE D.G. RAMAIAH, W/O DEVRAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 4. GNANAPOORNAMMA, D/O LATE D G RAMALAH, W/O LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 5. SHIVAPRAKASH D R., S/O LATE D G RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17926-DB WA No. 1039 of 2025 APPELLANTS NO. 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF DODDAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 211. 6. RAJAMMA, D/O LATE D.G. RAMAIAH, W/O RAMANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. DODDAHEJJAJI VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 204. 7. RAMADEVI, D/O LATE D.G. RAMAIAH, W/O DR THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT MUGADALABETTA, PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 116. 8. RENUKAMMA, LATE D.G. RAMAIAH, W/O D.R. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BEECHEGANAHALLY, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 209. APPELLANTS 2 TO 8 ARE THE LRS OF LATE D.G. RAMAIAH …APPELLANTS (BY MS. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17926-DB WA No. 1039 of 2025 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR-572 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR - 572 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216. 4. D.S. HONNAGANGAPPA, S/O SHADAKSHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DODDAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:09.11.2022 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.13827/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17926-DB WA No. 1039 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, calling in question the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.13827/2022. In the impugned order, the writ Court rejected the writ petition. 2. The parties are referred to by their rankings before the writ Court. 3. The petitioner before the writ Court assailed the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Deputy commissioner, whereby he affirmed the order dated 04.01.2010 and as a cumulative result thereof, the claim of the petitioners for regularization of unauthorized occupancy of subject land i.e., Sy.No.171 (New No.185), situated at Doddaguni Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District was turned down. 4. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught inasmuch as, there is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17926-DB WA No. 1039 of 2025 finding that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupancy of the subject land in Sy.No.171 (New No.185), situated at Doddaguni Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. He further contends that once he is shown to be in unauthorized occupation, the same needs to be regularized as per the policy enacted by the State in Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 r/w Section 108F of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State submits that the family of the petitioners are owning 5 acres of the land which is in excess of 2 hectares and that would come in the way of any claim being favoured in view of interdiction enacted in Section 94A of 1964 Act r/w Rule 108F of the 1966 Rules. Both the authorities having considered this aspect of the matter have passed the order in accordance with law. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contends that once the revenue officials have given - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17926-DB WA No. 1039 of 2025 findings on the factuals, ordinarily writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 (Article 226 also ornamentally employed in the pleading, not withstanding) should not grant indulgence. 7. To buttress his arguments, learned Additional Government Advocate has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited1. 8. Learned Single Judge, considering these aspects of the matter has been of the opinion that the petitioner's family are holding lands more than 2 hectares, in that view of the matter, claim of the petitioners for regularization of unauthorized occupancy cannot be granted and the writ Court dismissed the writ petition. 9. This appeal is filed with a delay of 935 days. There is no plausible explanation forthcoming in the affidavit in support of the application for delay of 935 days in preferring the appeal. We have gone through the entire 1 (2003) 3 SCC 524 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17926-DB WA No. 1039 of 2025 affidavit as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any error in the order, which requires as interference of this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, this writ appeal is dismissed both on delay as well as on merits. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is/are disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 ct-vn