Sri Renukappa Vs the State of Karnataka

R. NARSIMAIAH S/O. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O. PERSONAPALYA, SHANUMANGALA BIDADI HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT: RAMANGARA-562 109

¶11

SMT. THIMMAHANUMAKKA W/O. GOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O. GOLLAHARAPALYA SHESHAGIRIHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI TALUK AND DISTRICT: RAMANGARA-562 109

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SMT. GEETHA A., ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6716 WP No. 1989 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA-562 159

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SESHU V., H.C.G.P.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS BEARING NO.LND/CR/965/19992000 DATED 27-10-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO E2 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 11-8-2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, D1, D2, SAGUVALI CHIT MAY BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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

The grievance of the petitioners is that they had filed applications in Form No.53 for regularization of unauthorized occupation of land. The Tahsildar has issued

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6716 WP No. 1989 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the impugned endorsements dated 27.10.2025 at

¶31

Annexures–E to 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 application of several applicants and the names of the petitioners is found therein. 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 within the prohibited distance from the boundary of the BBMP. This aspect of the matter was also not brought to the notice of this Court when the previous writ petition was filed.

¶32

There is substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6716 WP No. 1989 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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 application. 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 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. 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.

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6716 WP No. 1989 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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-E to E2 is 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

¶39

any rate within a period of 2 (Two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶41

KLY CT:VC

Sri Renukappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Renukappa 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 B C Subbarao, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sushma B N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Puttaswamy Gowda, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Padma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraj Vs the Tahsildhar