Dismissed¶61

Sri Hallappa H G v. the Deputy Commissioner

Writ Appeal (KLR-RES) – Regularization of unauthorized occupation

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WA/757/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 757 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; writ appeal dismissed; regularization of unauthorized occupation; grant order 1998; cancellation of grant; date of application versus subsequent events; appointment as Teacher 1991; complaint after 26 years; R.A.No.105/2023-24; NCR (C.B) 150/2022-23; Deputy Commissioner Hassan; Assistant Commissioner Sakaleshpura; Tahasildar Belur Taluk; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants — appeal dismissed sans merits; no costs awarded, and the Writ Court's order dated 26.04.2025 stands. ¶61

Sri Hallappa H G Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants — appeal dismissed sans merits; no costs awarded, and the Writ Court's order dated 26.04.2025 stands.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether eligibility of an applicant for grant/regularization of land is to be tested by the date on which the application is made, rather than by subsequent events such as the grantee's appointment as a Teacher. +2 more

¶49

Court's answer

It is the date on which the application is filed that is relevant for consideration of the right for regularization, not subsequent events; the application was filed in 1986, much prior to petitioner No.1's appointment as a Teacher in 1991, so the subsequent appointment cannot disentitle the petitioners.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners (appellants) are not rival claimants to the land; even if they were, the proceedings could not be annulled on the count that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Teacher only in 1991, since the application was filed in 1986.

¶56

Key takeaways

This Court finds no infirmities in the order passed by the learned Single Judge; the appeal is sans merits and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (KLR-RES) — Regularization of unauthorized occupation — Intra-court appeal by respondent Nos.4 and 5 of the writ petition against the Single Judge's order dated 26.04.2025 in WP No.6906/2025, which had quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order in R.A.No.105/2023-24 and the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 24.01.2024 in NCR (C.B) 150/2022-23 cancelling the 1998 grant regularizing petitioner No.1's unauthorized occupation on the ground of his appointment as a Teacher in 1991. Held (per T.M. Nadaf, J.; coram D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf, JJ.): eligibility for grant/regularization is tested by the date of the application — filed in 1986, prior to the 1991 appointment — and not by subsequent events; the appellants are not rival claimants; no infirmity in the learned Single Judge's order. Appeal dismissed sans merits; no costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28527-DB WA No. 757 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.757 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. HALLAPPA H.G., S/O. LATE GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT HEBBALU GRAMA, HALEBIDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶11

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. H. M. THIRTHANAND, S/O. MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SOMANAHALLI GRAMA, MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶13

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:28527-DB WA No. 757 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SAKALESHPURA -0 573 134.

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶23

SRI. B. C. BASAVARAJU, S/O. CHANNABASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. B. K. KALA, W/O. B. C. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5 ARE R/AT BANADA HALLI, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. AFSAR A.P., FOR R4 AND R5)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP No.6906/2025 DATED:26.04.2025 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28527-DB WA No. 757 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶35

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.6905/2025 are

¶36

before this Court in this intra-court appeal assailing the order dated 26.04.2025 by the Writ Court. By means of impugned order the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.105/2023-24 and the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2Assistant Commissioner in NCR (C.B) 150/2022-23 (Annexures – A and B).

¶37

Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court.

¶38

FACTS GERMANE TO FILE THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:

¶39

The petitioner No.1 claims that he has filed an application seeking for regularization of his unauthorized occupation. After much deliberation on the application, an

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28527-DB WA No. 757 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

order came to be passed in the year 1998 regularising his

¶43

unauthorized occupation by means of grant order.

¶44

A complaint was made alleging that the land

¶45

had been granted in favour of the petitioner, who was appointed as a Teacher on 30.08.1991. The Assistant Commissioner considering the claim, exercising the jurisdiction, cancelled the grant on the ground that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Teacher on 31.08.1991. Said order came to be confirmed with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. These orders were the subject matter in the writ petition. The Writ Court after securing the records from the office found that the application had been filed in the year 1986 seeking for regularization of his unauthorized occupation. The proceedings had been initiated for imposition of fines and found that the petitioner was in occupation of the land much prior to 13.08.1991, the day on which the petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Teacher.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28527-DB WA No. 757 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The Writ Court having found that it is settled

¶49

position of law that in order to test the eligibility of an applicant for grant of land is the date on which the application is made and not the subsequent events. The petitioners having filed the application in the year 1986 seeking for regularization of unauthorized occupation cannot be held to disentitled on the subsequent event that the petitioner No.1 had been appointed as Teacher in the year 1991. Further taking note of the fact that the complaint has been made after 26 years from the date of grant, the Writ Court held that the said action on the part of the respondent-Authorities is wholly irrational and cannot be entertained or sustained. In that view of the matter, the Writ Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders therein. This order of the Writ Court is called in question by the respondent No.4 and 5 in this appeal.

¶50

Heard Sri. Shiva Shankar K, learned counsel

¶51

appearing for the appellant, Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28527-DB WA No. 757 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

AGA appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. Afsar A.P., learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶55

The appellants reiterated the very same points, which have been taken before the respondent-Authorities and before the Writ Court. The Writ Court having secured the records found that the application having been filed in

¶56

the year 1986, much prior to the date the petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Teacher and reasoned this order that what is relevant to be considered is the fact when the application was filed and not the subsequent event. The petitioners herein are not rival claimants. Even if they are

¶57

so, the proceedings sought to be annulled on the count that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Teacher only in

¶58

the year 1991, i.e., much prior to passing of order of grant. But the fact remains that the application was filed in the year 1986 as rightly considered by the Writ Court that it is the date on which the application is filed is relevant for consideration of the right for regularization

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28527-DB WA No. 757 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

and not the subsequent events. We find no infirmities in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal sans merits and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, no costs.

¶62

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶64

¶65

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn

Sri Hallappa H G v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hallappa H G v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Revanna Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Chandrashekar Padubidri Vs Competent Authority

Sri Damodara M D Vs Smt. Brunda R

Mr. Jaison P.C. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Jaishankar Sundaram Vs the Branch Manager

State of Karnataka Vs Saphia