- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2350 WP No. 31886 of 2024 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. 31886 OF 2024 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SRI. AGASARA MUNISWAMY S/O VENKATARAMANAPPAA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/T MUTHKURU VILLGE ANUGONDANAHLLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TLAUK, HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B VISWESWARAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114. 2. THE SECRETARY DARKASTH COMMITTEE HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO ENFORCE THE ORDERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A DTD 31.01.2004 AND ANNEXURE-B DTD 16.07.2003 AND ETC. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2350 WP No. 31886 of 2024 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 of both the respondents. 2. Although the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E dated 04.10.2024 issued by the Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was filed much prior to the year 2004, which is supported by the facts stated in the impugned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2350 WP No. 31886 of 2024 endorsement that in terms of the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar on 03.02.2004, a decision is taken by the ‘Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’). Learned Counsel submits that there are two reasons found in the impugned endorsement for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner. Firstly, the land in question falls within the prohibited distance from the boundary of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). However, this Court has laid down a law that the distance is required to be measured from the boundary of the then local authority which prevailed as on the date of the application. Learned Counsel submits that various other applications filed at the same point of time have been considered and lands have been granted, which would mean that at the relevant point of time the lands in question were not within the prohibited distance. Secondly, it is stated in the endorsement that the petitioner was not in occupation of the land in question, which is the prerequisite for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2350 WP No. 31886 of 2024 consideration of the application for regularization of unauthorized occupation. Learned Counsel submits that in this regard no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner and the Tahsildar has taken a unilateral decision which is not permissible in law. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that having regard to the two reasons furnished in the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, it is clear that the application filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected as ineligible application. The matter was required to be considered by the Committee. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 04.10.2024 at Annexure-E issued by the respondent- Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk. The respondent-Tahsildar is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2350 WP No. 31886 of 2024 hereby directed to place the application filed by the petitioner before the ‘Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation’ within period of 8 (Eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Committee shall thereafter consider the application in accordance with law and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 3 (Three) months from the date when which the application is placed before the Committee at the hands of the Tahsildar. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL