Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 41101 (KAR)

SRI.RANGANNA K G v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12031/2025 · 2026-09-11

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010257742025 NC: 2026:KHC:49648 WP NO.12031 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12031 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RANGANNA K.G. S/O GANGABHAIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O KURUGUNDUA, SASALU POST, GULURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH M.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 4. THE TAHSILDAR AND TALUK EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010257742025 NC: 2026:KHC:49648 WP NO.12031 OF 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14TH MAY, 2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, WHEREBY THE APPLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM NOS.50, 53, AND 57 SEEKING GRANT OF 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.135 OF SASALU VILLAGE, TUMAKURU TALUK, HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY REJECTED VIDE ANNEXURE-K; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS IN SRUVEY NO.135 OF SASALU VILLAGE, TUMAKURU TALUK AND FURTHER TO GRANT THE SAID LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION HIS CONTINUOUS POSSESSION AND CULTIVATION INTHE SAID LAND; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14th May, 2024 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.2, wherein the applications of the petitioner filed in Form Nos.50, 53 and 57 seeking grant of the land to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Survey No.135 of Sasalu Village, Tumakuru Taluk came to be rejected; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid land and further to grant the same in favour of the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in continuous possession and cultivation. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010257742025 NC: 2026:KHC:49648 WP NO.12031 OF 2025 2. Heard Sri. Girish M.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Aditya Diwakara, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is forthcoming that the petitioner has made applications to the respondent-Authorities seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation in respect of the schedule land as per Annexure-B. The respondent No.2, after considering the material on record, by impugned order had arrived at a conclusion that the applications made by the petitioner cannot be accepted in terms of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as the schedule land is situate within 10 kms from the limits of Tumakuru Corporation. Perusal of the Endorsement dated 04th December, 2023 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent No.4 also makes it clear that the schedule land is within 10 kms from the limits of Tumakuru Corporation. Therefore, respondent No.2, after considering the said aspect that the schedule land is situate within 10 kms from the Tumakuru Corporation limits, had rejected the applications made by the petitioner. In that view - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010257742025 NC: 2026:KHC:49648 WP NO.12031 OF 2025 of the matter, I am of the view that, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this petition. Accordingly, Writ petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending applications does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IAs.1 and 2 of 2026 stands disposed of. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8