- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4915 WP No. 1743 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1743 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.DEVAI SHEDTHI D/O LATE SHEENAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 11/145A, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-571201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATADRI, UDUPI, MANIPAL-576104 2. TAHSILDAR/ THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AKRAMA-SAKRAMA COMMITTEE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI-576 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOA) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2025 IN REVENUE APPEAL NO. 184/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE EXTENT OF REMITTING BACK MATTER TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4915 WP No. 1743 of 2026 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REVENUE APPEAL NO. 184/2018 AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for both respondents. 2. Although the matter is coming up for 'Preliminary Hearing', with the consent of the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that when the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back for reconsideration, it should have remanded the matter back to the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation, since the application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4915 WP No. 1743 of 2026 ground that the land is a forest land. Therefore, for reconsideration the matter should go back to the Committee and not to the Deputy Commissioner who is the appellate authority. 4. There is substance in the submission made to the learned counsel for petitioner. When the original finding while rejecting the application is that of the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorised Occupation, the matter should have been remanded back to the Committee for reconsideration so that opportunity could be given to the petitioner as well as the forest officials to have their say in the matter. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of by modifying the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No.184/2018 dated 22.07.2025 to the extent that the remand shall be to the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation and not the Deputy Commissioner. With such modification the matter stands - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4915 WP No. 1743 of 2026 remanded back to the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation, while the other portion of the order remains intact. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6