Siraj Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL REMINDER DATED 25.05.2021 IN NO.LND(H) CR.136/2020-21 ISSUE BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dated 09.10.2023 at Annexure-D issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, declining to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioner, although it is noted in the endorsement that the ‘Committee for Regularization of Unauthorised Occupation’ had passed an order on 01.09.2010 recommending regularization of 2 acres of land in Survey No.17 of Kattigenahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that the land in question falls within the prohibited distance of 18 kilometers from the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30061 WP No. 24900 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

boundary of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP, for short).

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Thasildar-Hosakote had passed an order on 28.08.2023 directing issuance of Saguvali Chit while noticing the recommendation made by the Committee. However, the same was not acted upon and the subsequent incumbent of the Office of the Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsement dated 09.10.2023. Learned Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of Sri.Ravikumar and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.237 of 2022, dated 17.01.2024 , which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel submits that in the said case too, the recommendation had made by the Committee in favour of the petitioners therein, in respect of the very same Survey No.17 of Kattigenahalli Village on

¶30

14.10.2010.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30061 WP No. 24900 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Under similar circumstances, this Court in the

¶34

case of Sri.Ashwathappa and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.2411 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022, it was held that at any rate, the applications cannot be rejected on the ground that the lands are within

¶35

the prohibited distance and the distance was to be measured as per the geographical jurisdiction of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, as it was, on the date of the applications made by the petitioners. This Court had also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to file an Affidavit and on the basis of the Affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, this Court issued directions to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the application and pass orders having regard to the observations made by this Court as to how the distance has to be measured, having regard to the geographical jurisdiction of the local body, at the point of time when the application was filed by the petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that similar orders are to be passed in this matter also.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30061 WP No. 24900 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Having regard to the decision of this Court in the

¶39

case of Sri.Ashwathappa and others ( supra ), this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶42

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated

¶43

09.10.2023 at Annexure-D, issued by the

¶44

respondent-Tahsildar, Hosakote and the Official Memorandum dated 25.05.2021 at Annexure-E, issued by the respondentDeputy Commissioner, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶45

(iii) Annexure-F, the Report furnished by the respondent-Revenue Inspector, regarding the distance between the land in question and the boundaries of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), is also quashed and set aside, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30061 WP No. 24900 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

(iv) The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, is

¶49

hereby directed to cause a fresh survey measuring the distance between the land in question and the boundary of the then Bangalore Municipal Corporation, as it was, as on the date of the application filed by the petitioner.

¶50

(v) The geographical jurisdiction of the then Bangalore Municipal Corporation, as it was, as on the date of the application i.e. in the year 1998, should be taken into consideration for measuring the distance.

¶51

(vi) If the distance is not within the prohibited distance as prescribed in Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and in terms of the prescription in the Table, as it

¶52

was in the year 1998, then the Deputy Commissioner shall immediately proceed to direct issuance of Saguvali Chit in

¶53