- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 9999 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE MUNI HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 76, KAMAKSHIPURA, BYATHA, BENGALURU PINCODE – 560 089. 2. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNI HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMAKSHIPURA, BYATHA, BENGALURU PINCODE – 560 089. 3. K.M. MUNIRAJAIAH S/O MUNI HANUMAIIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMAKSHIPURA, BYATHA, BENGALURU PINCODE – 560 089. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUHAS.S, FOR SRI. SURESH K, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 065. 5. THE DEPUTY THASILDHAR YELANKHA TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 065. 6. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR HESARGHATTA HOBLI, RAJANKUNTE – 560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO GRANT THE SAID LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND THEREAFTER ISSUE SAGUVALI CHIT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE IN SY NO.42, SITUATED AT KAMAKSHIPURA VILLAGE, HESERGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK (PREVIOUSLY BANGALORE NORTH TALUK) AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners’ father-Late Muni Hanumaiah S/o Siddappa filed an Application in Form No.50 on 13.09.1991 seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of 1 Acre of land in Survey No.42 of Kamakshipura village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yalahanka Taluk. However, the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation has passed the impugned resolution/order dated 15.01.2013, rejecting the Application on the ground that the land in question is situated within the prohibited distance of 18 k.m., from the boundary of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The learned Counsel would further submit that the application was filed in the year 1991 and at that point of time the land in question was not within the prohibited distance of 18 k.m., from the boundary of the BBMP. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court has held in several such cases, including the case of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 Sri.Ravikumar and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.237/2022 dated 17.01.2024, as to the manner in which the distance has to be measured. The learned counsel prays for similar orders. 3. This Court has held, having regard to the earlier decisions in the case of Sri.Ravikumar and Another (supra), as follows: "5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and the Revenue Authorities and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the law as to the consideration of the distance having regard to the date of the application has been settled by this Court. Therefore, all that is required to be done now at the hands of the respondent - Tahsildar is to find out the distance between the land in question and the boundary of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as on the date of the application. Learned counsel had submitted during the course of the arguments that it appears that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 the boundaries of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike were extended in the year 2007 by a notification. If that is the truth, then the Tahsildar is required to re-ascertain regarding the distance between the land in question and boundary of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as it was prior to 2007, if such a notification was issued and the boundaries of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike were extended in the year 2007. At any rate in terms of the law laid down by 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, the distance has to be measured as per the geographical jurisdiction of local body as it was on the date of the application filed by the petitioners. 6. For that purpose, the writ petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and all other earlier orders passed by the Tahsildar. The matter stands remanded to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 the Tahsildar, Hosakote with a specific direction that he shall decide as to what was the distance between the land in question and the boundary of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as it was as on the date of application i.e., in the year 1998. If it is clear that the land in question was not within the prohibited distance having regard to the boundaries of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, then the Tahsildar shall immediately proceed to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 4. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned resolution/order dated 15.01.2013 at Annexure -B, passed by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk with a specific direction that he shall decide as to what - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 was the distance between the land in question and the boundary of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) or Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) as it was as on the date of application i.e., 13.09.1991. If it is clear that the land in question was not within the prohibited distance having regard to the boundaries of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP), then the Tahsildar shall place the report and application filed by the petitioner’s father in Form No.50 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, who is the competent authority to consider the application in respect of properties falling within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Urban District, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass necessary orders on the application as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date when the application would be placed before the Deputy Commissioner. 5. It is made clear that the application shall not be rejected on the ground that the property is situated within the prohibited distance, having regard to the fact that the application was filed in the year 1991. The Deputy - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18554 WP No. 9999 of 2026 Commissioner shall follow the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ashwathappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No.2411/2022 dated 18.02.2022. 6. Needless to observe that the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till a decision is again taken by the competent authority. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30