- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4065 WP No. 1327 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1327 OF 2026 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SMT. PADMA W/O. SRI CHANDRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT. DODDAKOLIGA VILLAGE, BEGUR POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEGDE SHRIPAD GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMITTEE FOR-REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF LANDS, HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114, BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4065 WP No. 1327 of 2026 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, MINI VIKAS SOUDHA, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN - 561 203. 4. THE TAHASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) DECLARE THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 94-A OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1990 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL 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 Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents. 2. Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, the matter is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4065 WP No. 1327 of 2026 3. On the previous occasion when an endorsement was issued to the petitioner that since the land falls within the prohibited distance of 18 kilometers from the boundary of the BBMP, the lands cannot be granted, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. When the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, the petitioner came before this Court in W.P.No.18276/2013. This Court by order dated 11.09.2020, noticed the submission of the learned Government Advocate that by mistake the endorsement was issued as the lands come within the prohibited distance of the boundary of BBMP. However, what was relevant was Clause 3 of Section 94(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, where the distance is to be measured from the boundary of the municipality. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed while setting aside the endorsement dated 04.10.2012 while remanding the matter back to the respondent authority to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh. Nevertheless, the Assistant Commissioner once again took up the matter and when notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a memo dated 18.08.2022, which is found at Annexure-H, clearly stating that the matter has to be reconsidered by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4065 WP No. 1327 of 2026 Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation and not the Assistant Commissioner. Despite such a memo being filed before the Assistant Commissioner, he has proceeded to consider the matter while reopening the appeal that was earlier filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel is therefore right in his submission that the matter was not remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for reopening the appeal that was filed by the petitioner. The matter was to be reconsidered by the committee to firstly find out whether there was any prohibition insofar as the application filed by the petitioner seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation of 4 acres of land in Survey No.14 of Gullahalli Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, from the boundary of the municipality. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-J passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub Division in proceedings bearing No.RRC(A):08/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation, Hoskote Taluk, for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4065 WP No. 1327 of 2026 reconsideration of the application filed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is also required to take note of the fact that a law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Ashwathappa and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.2411/2022 dated 18.02.2022, that the distance between the lands for which applications have been filed for regularization has to be measured having regard to the geographical boundary of the local authority as on the date of the application and not when the application is taken up for consideration. This would mean that respondent No.2 has to first find out what was the geographical boundary of the Hoskote Town Municipality in the year 1991 and thereafter, measure the distance. For this purpose, the assistance of the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department may be taken. It is made clear that unless such exercise is undertaken to find out what was the boundary of the municipality prevailing in the year 1991 and whether the distance between the land in question and the boundary as it stood in the year 1991 was within the prohibited distance, respondent No.2 shall not reject the application on that ground. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4065 WP No. 1327 of 2026 6. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9