Allowed¶47

Sri Ashok Kumar K v. the Tahasildar

Land regularization – Saguvali Chit

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026WP/23106/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Saguvali Chit; regularization of unauthorized occupation; prohibited distance; Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation; Doddaballapura Taluk; Thirumagondanahalli village; Survey No. 187; kimmath; Tahsildar endorsement quashed; Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution; High Court of Karnataka; W.P. No. 23106/2025 (KLR-RES); Sri Ashwathappa W.P. No. 2411/2022 dated 18.02.2022.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure-A) quashed and set aside; respondent-Tahsildar directed to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioners' mother after collecting kimmath if not already paid, within two months. ¶47

Sri Ashok Kumar K Vs the Tahasildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahsildar's endorsement dated 03.05.2025 refusing to issue Saguvali Chit, on the ground that the lands fall within the prohibited distance from the boundary of Doddaballapura City Municipal Council, could stand despite the Committee's unchallenged resolution dated 02.02.2012 granting the lands to the petitioners' mother. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2025 refusing Saguvali Chit could not stand: the Committee had already resolved on 02.02.2012 to grant the lands to the petitioners' mother, that decision was unchallenged, and the Committee was aware that the lands did not fall within the prohibited distance.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The distance from the boundary of the local authority, for purposes of regularization of unauthorized occupation, is to be measured having regard to the geographical jurisdiction of the local authority as on the date of the application, not the date of consideration; accordingly, the Committee's 02.02.2012 decision proceeded on the correct footing.

¶46

Key takeaways

The respondent-Tahsildar is directed to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioners' mother after collecting the kimmath if not already paid, completing the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land regularization — Saguvali Chit — Endorsement dated 03.05.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Doddaballapura Taluk, refusing Saguvali Chit for land in Sy.No. 187, Thirumagondanahalli village, on the ground that it falls within the prohibited distance from the boundary of Doddaballapura City Municipal Council, quashed and set aside — Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation had, by resolution dated 02.02.2012, directed grant of the land to the petitioners' mother, Smt. Jayalakshmamma, and that decision stood unchallenged — distance from the local authority's boundary to be measured with reference to the geographical jurisdiction of the local authority as on the date of the application for regularization, following Sri Ashwathappa v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 2411/2022 (decided 18.02.2022) — Tahsildar directed to issue Saguvali Chit after collecting kimmath, if not already paid, within two months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19361 WP No. 23106 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 23106 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI ASHOK KUMAR K S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY N AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶11

NO 86, THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI

¶12

DODDABALLAPURA HADONAHALLI

¶13

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE 561205.

¶14

SRI. SURESH K

¶15

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY N AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABALLAPURA, HADONAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE 561205.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. MUNEENDRA G.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY C.D., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DIST BANGALORE 561205.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:19361 WP No. 23106 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE SECRETARY LAND REGULARIZE COMMITTEE DODDABALLAPURA TALUK DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DIST BANGALORE 561205.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RESPECT OF ABOVE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTING 1^ST RESPONDENT TO ISSUE SAGUVALI CHIT IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 187 TO AN EXTENT OF 0.20 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI, THUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The grievance of the petitioners is directed towards the impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2025 at Annexure-A issued by the 1^st respondent-Tahsildar, Doddaballapura Taluk.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners gave a representation to the respondentTahsildar seeking to issue Saguvali Chit having regard to

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19361 WP No. 23106 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the orders passed by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation, granting 20 Guntas of land in Survey No.187 of Thirumagondanahalli village, Tubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. It was contented that on 02.02.2012, the Committee passed a resolution directing grant of the lands in favour of the petitioners’ mother-Smt. Jayalakshmamma. The Tahsildar although admits the fact that such a resolution/order was passed by the Committee, nevertheless, the Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsement stating that since the lands in question fall within the prohibited distance from the boundary of Doddaballapura City Municipal Council, Saguvali Chit cannot be issued to the petitioners.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Tahsildar could not have issued the impugned endorsement having regard to the admitted fact

¶37

that the Committee resolved to grant the lands in favour of the petitioners’ mother by its order dated 02.02.2012. There being no challenge to the decision taken by the

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19361 WP No. 23106 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Committee, the Tahsildar could not have issued the impugned endorsement. Moreover, this Court in the case of SRI.ASHWATHAPPA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, IN W.P.NO.2411/2022 DATED 18.02.2022, has held that the consideration of the application for regularization of unauthorized occupation should be done having regard to the date on which the application was filed and not when the application is taken up for consideration. The distance is required to be measured having regard to the geographical jurisdiction of the local authority as on the date of the application. Moreover, in the present case the Tahsildar does not deny the fact that such a decision is already taken by the Committee. Therefore, the Tahsildar was duty bound to issue the Saguvali Chit instead of issuing the impugned endorsement.

¶41

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

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19361 WP No. 23106 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

This Court in the case of SRI.ASHWATHAPPA

¶45

(supra) has laid down the law as to the measurement of

¶46

the distance from the boundary of the local authority to find out whether the lands fall within the prohibited distance. The learned Counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that this Court has held that the distance has to be measured having regard to the geographical jurisdiction of the local authority as on the date of the application. In that view of the matter, it is clear that when the Committee took a decision on 02.02.2012 to grant the lands in favour of the petitioners’ mother, the Committee was aware of the fact that the lands in question did not fall within the prohibited distance.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The

¶48

impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2025 at Annexure-A issued by the 1^st respondent-Tahsildar, Doddaballapura Taluk is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondentTahsildar is hereby directed to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioners’ mother after collecting the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:19361 WP No. 23106 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

kimmath if not already paid by the petitioners or their mother. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶53

order.

¶54

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶55

DL CT: JL

Sri Ashok Kumar K v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashok Kumar K v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rudramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Vinod @ Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniyappa P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Prem Kumar K N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kariyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Johson Jacob Vs the State of Karnataka