Allowed¶43

Smt. Narasamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2026WP/1968/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, R Devdas J, 09.02.2026, WP 1968/2026 (KLR-RES), Articles 226/227. Saguvali chit / Form No.53 regularisation of unauthorised occupation (1998 applications); Tahsildar's endorsements dated 27.10.2025 (Annexures-E1, E2) quashed; Committee resolution Annexure-C dated 19.02.2018 binding; BBMP prohibited-distance ground rejected; remedy against grant is before Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108K Karnataka Land Revenue Rules; grants to be confirmed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsements dated 27.10.2025 at Annexures-E1 and E2 quashed and set aside; respondent-Tahsildar directed to pass necessary orders confirming the grants made by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation, expeditiously and in any event within two months of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶43

Smt. Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahsildar could reject the petitioners' Form No.53 regularisation applications (filed in 1998) on the ground that the lands now fall within the prohibited distance from the BBMP boundary, notwithstanding the Committee's resolution dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure-C) resolving to regularise the lands.

¶38

Court's answer

Where the Committee has already taken a decision (Annexure-C dated 19.02.2018) resolving to grant the lands, it is not permissible for the Tahsildar to reject the applications or issue rejecting endorsements.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Once a grant is made by the competent authority, the Tahsildar has no option but to question the grant before the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

¶38

Key takeaways

An application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation must be considered having regard to the date of the application and the boundaries of the local authority prevailing at that point of time.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (KLR-RES) allowed. The Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, had rejected the petitioners' 1998 Form No.53 applications for regularisation of unauthorised occupation by endorsements dated 27.10.2025 (Annexures-E1/E2), on the ground that the lands lay within the prohibited distance of the BBMP boundary. Held: once the Committee resolved on 19.02.2018 (Annexure-C) to regularise and grant the lands, the Tahsildar could not reject the applications; any challenge to a grant by the competent authority lies before the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules; and regularisation falls to be assessed by the date of the application and the local authority boundaries prevailing then. Endorsements quashed; Tahsildar directed to confirm the grants within two months.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7869 WP No. 1968 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1968 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NARASAMMA W/O- ALLAPPA AGE 69 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O GOLLARAPALYA VILLAGE, SHANUMANGALA, BIDADI HOBLI, TALUK AND DIST.RAMANGARA - 562 109.

¶10

SMT. REVAMMA W/O SAMPANGI RAMAIAH AGE65 YEARS, Digitally signed (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) by SHARADAVANI OCC AGRICULTURE, B R/O- GOLLARAPALYA, Location: High Court of SHANUMANGALA, Karnataka BIDADI HOBLI, TALUK AND DIST. RAMANGARA - 562 109.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. GEETHA A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7869 WP No. 1968 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS BEARING NO.LND/CR/965/1999-2000 DATED 27/10/2025 VIDE ANNX-E1 TO E2 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 06.09.2025, 11.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D1 AND D2 SAGUVALI CHIT MAY BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶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

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice

¶26

for both the respondents.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶28

the applications filed by the 1^st petitioner and the husband

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7869 WP No. 1968 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

of 2^nd petitioner in Form No.53 for regularisation of unauthorised occupation in the year 1998 have been rejected by the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsements dated 27.10.2025 at Annexures–E1 and E2, rejecting the applications on the ground that the lands in question are within the prohibited distance from the boundary of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike (BBMP). Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that at Annexure-C, which is the resolution passed by the Committee on 19.02.2018, regularizing the lands while considering the applications of several applicants and at serial number 14 the name of the petitioner No.1 is found and in Sl.No.9 and 10, the name of the 2^nd petitioner's husband is found. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that the Committee has rightly taken a decision to regularise the lands in favour of the petitioners, since the applications were filed in the year 1998 and at that point of time the lands were not

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:7869 WP No. 1968 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

within the prohibited distance from the boundary of the BBMP.

¶36

3. There is substance in the submissions made by

¶37

the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the opinion that if a decision is already taken by the Committee as found at Annexure-C dated 19.02.2018, then it is not permissible for the Tahsildar to reject the applications. This Court has laid down the law that once a grant is made by the competent authority, then the Tahsildar has no other option than to question the grant before the Assistant Commissioner, invoking Rule 108K of

¶39

the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. This Court has also laid down the law that the application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation will have to be considered having regard to the date of the application and the boundaries of the local authority prevailing at that point of time.

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7869 WP No. 1968 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Therefore, the Tahsildar cannot issue such endorsements rejecting the applications, when once the Committee has decided and resolved to grant the lands in favour of the petitioners.

¶43

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned endorsements dated 27.10.2025 issued by the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk at Annexures-E1 and E2 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Tahsildar is thereby directed to proceed to pass necessary orders confirming the grants made by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation. The respondent-Tahsildar shall comply with the directions issued by this Court as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Smt. Narasamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Narasamma v. the State of Karnataka

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 Manjunatha Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Pramodha S Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Y L Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. C.G. Mallaesh Vs the State of Karnataka