Partly allowed

Smt. Halamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026WP/29299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Tahsildar's endorsement rejecting their regularization application on grounds that Sy.No.80 lands were reserved for land losers under Hemavathy/Yagachi Reservoir Projects. The Court held the Tahsildar was not the competent authority, set aside the endorsement, and directed reconsideration by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 28.07.2025 set aside; application to be placed before the Committee for reconsideration within six weeks; possession protected until decision.

Smt. Halamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18772 WP No. 29299 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 29299 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. HALAMMA W/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED 58 YEARS YELAHANKA VILLAGE, HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,

¶10

HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 121.

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. MALLESHAPPA S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA AGED 40 YEARS YELAHANKA VILLAGE, HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 121.

¶14

(BY SRI. K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BENGALURU- 560001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18772 WP No. 29299 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN- 573121.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HRP, REHABILITATION HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN- 573121.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN- 573121.

¶23

THE BAGAR HUKUM COMMITTEE BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

¶24

BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 121.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:18772 WP No. 29299 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on an earlier occasion the petitioners had knocked the doors of this Court in W.P.No.10378/2024 seeking a direction to the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation to consider and dispose of their application for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation. Accordingly this Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 28.11.2024 directing the Committee to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and pass necessary orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Belur Taluk has issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 28.07.2025 rejecting

¶35

the application on the ground that the lands in Sy.No.80 have been reserved for the purpose of allotment to land losers under the Hemavathy Reservoir Project or Yagachi

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18772 WP No. 29299 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Reservoir Project and for grant to ex-serviceman. Learned counsel submits that the Tahsildar is not the competent authority to have considered the application and rejected the same, moreover, directions issued by this Court is to

¶39

the Committee and not to the Tahsildar. Further, attention of this Court is drawn to the RTC at Annexure-F pertaining to Sy.No.80 and the information given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathy Reservoir Project at Annexure-E, while stating that Sy.No.80 has a total extent of land of 317 acres and 29 guntas and the Government gomal land therein is 197 acres and 21 guntas. Out of the said lands 125 acres of lands have been reserved for allotment to the land losers under the Hemavathy or Yagachi Reservoir Projects. Annexure-E is the information that even after the reservation of lands for the benefit of the land losers under the Hemavathy or Yagachi projects and for allotment to the ex-serviceman, an extent of 34 acres and 24 guntas are still available in Sy.No.80.

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18772 WP No. 29299 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

In the considered opinion of this Court,

¶43

respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Belur Taluk could not have rejected the application of the petitioners, since he is not the competent authority and the directions issued by this Court are also not complied.

¶44

Consequently, writ petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A issued by Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Belur Taluk. The Tahsildar is hereby directed to place the application of the petitioners before the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation for reconsideration within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Committee shall thereafter consider the application and pass necessary orders having regard to the observations made hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date when which the application will be placed by the Tahsildar before the Committee.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:18772 WP No. 29299 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Needless to observe that till such a decision is

¶49

taken by the Committee, the possession of the petitioners

¶50

in respect of the lands in question shall not be disturbed.

¶51

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶52

GPG

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Smt. Halamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Halamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Neelamma Vs State of Karnataka

N Parthasarathi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Munirajappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rudramma Vs the State of Karnataka