- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4577 WP No. 1984 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1984 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O- ASHWATHAPPA AGE 44 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PARASANAPALYA VILLAGE, SHANUMANGALA, BIDADI HOBLI, TALUK AND DIST. RAMANGARA-562 109. 2. SRI. PUTTANANJAIAH, S/O SAMPANGIRAMAIAH AGE-45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O- PARSONAPALYA, SHANUMANGALA, BIDADI HOBLI, TALUK AND DIST. RAMANGARA-562 109. 3. SRI. GOVINDAIAH S/O- KEMPAIAH, AGE-59 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O- GOLLAHARAPALYA, BIDADI HOBLI, TALUK AND DIST. RAMANGARA-562 109. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GEETHA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4577 WP No. 1984 of 2026 BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS BEARING NO.LND/CR/965/1999-2000 DATED 27-10-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO E2 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS, SAGUVALI CHIT MAY BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW 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 High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners' submits that the petitioners had filed Form No.53 in the year 1998 for regularization of unauthorized occupation. The same were considered by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsements dated 27.10.2025 at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4577 WP No. 1984 of 2026 Annexure–E series, rejecting the applications on the ground that the lands in question are within the prohibited distance of 18 kms. from the boundary of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike (BBMP). 3. The learned Counsel would further submit that the application was filed in the year 1998 and at that point of time the land in question was not within the prohibited distance of 18 kms., from the boundary of the BBMP. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court has held in several such cases, including the case of Sri.Ravikumar and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.237/2022 dated 17.01.2024, has laid down the law as to the manner in which the distance has to be measured. The learned counsel prays for similar orders. 5. This Court has held, having regard to the earlier decisions in the case of Sri.Ravikumar and Another (supra), as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4577 WP No. 1984 of 2026 "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 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4577 WP No. 1984 of 2026 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." 6. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned endorsements dated 27.10.2025 at Annexure-E, E1 and E2 issued by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, with a specific direction that he shall decide as to what was the distance between the land in question and the boundary of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) as it was as on the date of applications filed in the year 1998. If it is clear that the lands in question were not within the prohibited distance having regard to the boundaries of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP), then the Tahsildar shall place - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4577 WP No. 1984 of 2026 the report and applications filed by the petitioners in Form No.53 before the Committee, the Committee shall consider the applications of the petitioners and proceed to pass necessary orders in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE GPG