- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5349 WP No. 2569 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT GANGAMMA W/O MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A GOLLARAPALYA, SHANUMANGALA BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GEETHA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING LND/CR/585/2024 DTD 09.01.2026 VIDE ANNX-F ISSUED BY R-2 TO THE WP AND BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DTD 31.12.2025 VIDE Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5349 WP No. 2569 of 2026 ANNX-E, SAGUVALI CHIT MAY BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 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 both the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.28676/2025 and this Court by order dated 23.09.2025 disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk to place the application of the petitioner before the ‘Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Committee was thereafter directed to consider the application and pass the necessary orders within a period of two months. However, the Tahsildar has now issued - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5349 WP No. 2569 of 2026 the impugned endorsement dated 09.01.2026 at Annexure–F, rejecting the application on the ground that the land in question is 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 1999 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. This aspect of the matter was also not brought to the notice of this Court when the previous writ petition was filed. 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, as to the manner in which the distance has to be measured. The learned counsel prays for similar orders. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5349 WP No. 2569 of 2026 5. 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5349 WP No. 2569 of 2026 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 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 endorsement dated 09.01.2026 at Annexure-F issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, is 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 application i.e., 24.04.1999. If it is clear that the land in question was not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5349 WP No. 2569 of 2026 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 in Form No.53 before the Committee, the Committee shall consider the application of the petitioner and proceed to pass necessary orders in favour of the petitioner 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 Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL