- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 26976 OF 2025 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN: 1. POOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O APPANNA 2. SUNITHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS W/O SUDHARSHAN 3. S K SWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O KEMPAYYA 4. N BHAGYA N AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS W/O KISORE KUAMR G S 5. P NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O M PILLAPPA 6. G P KEERTHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O G K PRAKASH 7. G P KEERTHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O G K PRAKASH Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 8. G P KRISHNAVENI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O G K PRAKASH 9. LAKSHMPATHI G K S/O G M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 10. M MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 11. DEVARAJ N S/O G NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 12. M ANANTHARAMAIAH S/O MUNIVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 13. VANAJA SHASHI W/O VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 14. LOKESH S S/O SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 15. SUBRAMANI S S/O SRINIVAS N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 16. K SUBRAMANI S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 17. SUBRAMANI N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 18. S KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SUBANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 19. INDRAMMA W/O THIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 20. MUNIRAJU B S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 21. RUKMINI S W/O MUNIKRISHNA N AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 22. PADMA G W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 23. SHOBHA S W/O NANJUNDAPPA V M AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 24. MUNIYAPPA M S/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 25. G K NATARAJ LATE G M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 26. KIRAN KUMAR G N S/O NATARAJA G K AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 27. SRIKANTH G N S/O NATARAJ G K AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 28. J RAJU S/O JAYARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 29. M SUREKHA W/O L SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 30. KALAMMA W/O ESWARA CHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 31. R NANJAPPA S/O RAMALINGA CHARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 32. UMADEVI M N W/O LATE ESWARACHARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 33. SIDDAMMA W/O MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 34. SUBRAMANI C S/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 35. KUMAR N S/O NARAYNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 36. MANJUNATH N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 37. G KESHAVA MURTHY S/O JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 38. M PURUSHOTHAM S/O M MUNIPHILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 39. MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 40. JAYARAM K N S/O NARAYANPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 41. MUNISWAMYREDDY S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 42. MANJUNATH REDDY S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 43. RATHNAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 44. EERACHIKKEGOWDA K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 45. RUPADEVI W/O K SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 46. VENUGOPAL S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 47. R MANJUNATH S/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 48. AKHILESH S/O ANANTHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 49. ABHISHEK S/O ANANTHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 50. R MOHAN S/O RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 51. RAVI S/O P RAMANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 52. VARUNYOGA SUHAS B R S/O P RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 53. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 54. R ARUN S/O RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 55. PADMA W/O S K SWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 56. KRISHNAREDDY S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, 57. KRISHNAPPA S S/O LATE SUBBANNA , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 58. ASHWATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 59. ANANDA REDDY S/O ANNAYYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 60. G K PRAKASH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 61. G VENKATESH S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A PROPERTY NO.82 NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE GARUDACHARAPALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560048. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAGONDAPPA SUBHASHCHANDRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU 560001 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 4. THE TAHSILDAR K R PURAM TALUK OFFICE, K R PURAM BENGALURU 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT I.E TAHSILDAR K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, ORDER DATED 07.03.2023 VIDE NO.94C(CR)/320/2022-23 AS PER ANNEXURE-D 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 The grievance of the petitioners, who are 61 in numbers, in common is that, the respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, K.R.Puram, has issued the endorsement at Annexure-D on 07.03.2023, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners, who sought for regularization of unauthorized constructions of dwelling houses in the occupied lands. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tahsildar has stated in the impugned endorsement, the reason for rejection of the applications is that the lands in question in Survey No.82 measuring 3 Acres and 33 Guntas are basically ‘Sarkari Kanagalu’ or ‘Government Stockyards’ used for agricultural activities. It is also stated that there are commercial constructions put up on the property in question. Learned Counsel submits that both the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained, having regard to the fact that the provision in Section 94C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, enables the prescribed authority who, on satisfaction, after conducting an enquiry, deems it fit that any person is in unauthorized occupation of any land belonging to Government and has constructed a dwelling house on such land prior to 01st January, 2015, may on an application made to the prescribed authority grant such lands. In that view of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since both the reasons assigned by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 the Tahsildar cannot be sustained, the impugned endorsement should be set aside while directing the Tahsildar to reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners. 3. There is substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners. 4. The reasons assigned by the Tahsildar that the land in question is a Government land used for stocking the agricultural products is nothing but Government land which is permitted to be granted if the person making an application satisfies the requirement in terms of the said provisions. If unauthorized constructions are put up in the nearby vicinity, it is for the Tahsildar to get them evicted in accordance with law. The primary requirement of the provision is that the applicants should satisfy the prescribed authority that they have put up dwelling houses on Government lands within the urban agglomeration and if the applicants satisfy all the requirements of law, then - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2344 WP No. 26976 of 2025 appropriate orders will have to be passed by the Tahsildar regularizing the unauthorized occupation. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned endorsement at Annexure-D dated 07.03.2023. The respondent- Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, K.R.Puram is hereby directed to reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 (Six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL