Sri Bheemaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.04.2022 IN RA NO. 3/2022 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-F BY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FOR THE CON-DONATION OF DELAY AND THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-F passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:329 WP No. 26455 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

an application in Form No.50 seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.14 of Chikkathimmanahalli Village, Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk. However, the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation passed a resolution on 20.02.2004 rejecting the application on the ground that grants have already been made in favour of the petitioner earlier. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware of the resolution passed by the committee. However, on enquiry, when the petitioner found that such a resolution was passed by the committee, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, raising a challenge to the resolution passed by the committee. However, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay and laches.

¶33

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the petition papers, including the grounds raised in the petition, this Court does not find any contentions raised by the petitioner insofar as the reasons for rejection of the application is concerned. If the petitioner is admitting that

¶34