Disposed

Sri. K C Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026WP/38692/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, on a writ petition, held that the Tahsildar and the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation were duty-bound to consider a pending application from 1998. The court directed the Tahsildar to verify the file status and forward records to the Committee within two months, who must then decide on the application within another two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to verify the application status within two months and place it before the Committee for consideration and final order within another two months.

Sri. K C Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2004 WP No. 38692 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 38692 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. K C VENKATESH S/O SRI.CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R.AT KODRALLI VILLAGE KUMBARAHALLI POST SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.

¶7

&PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. G B NANDISH GOWDA. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.B.NANDISH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU 3 560 001

¶12

THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION SAKALESHPURA TALUK SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY ITS SECRETARY- 573 201.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR SAKALESHPURA TALUK

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:2004 WP No. 38692 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SAKALESHPURA- 573201.

¶18

&RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.SESHU V., HCGP)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-A APPLICATION IN FORM NO.53 DATED 29.12.1998 AND PASS ARE APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT BE DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING COSTS.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for all the respondents.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that he is in occupation of 2.00 Acres of land in Sy.42 of Kumbrahalli village, Yasaluru Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District, from several years. The grievance of the

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2004 WP No. 38692 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

petitioners is that his application filed in Form No.53 seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation in the year 1998, has not been considered till date. Therefore, the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to consider the said application.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Annexures filed along with memorandum of writ petition and contends that consequent to the application filed by the petitioner, his statement has been recorded by the Revenue Inspector and the Revenue Inspector has submitted his report to the Tahsildar along with Mahazar. The sketch has also been prepared by the competent authority. Nevertheless, no further action has been taken.

¶30

Having regard to the contentions raised in the writ petition and submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent-Tahsildar was duty bound to place the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2004 WP No. 38692 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

application filed by the petitioner in Form No.53 before the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation and the Committee was also duty bound to consider the application and pass necessary orders. That exercise not has been taken by the respondent-authorities till date.

¶34

Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Sakaleshpura Taluk to verify from the records as to whether such application filed by the petitioner in the year 1998, is pending consideration. If it is found that such application was indeed filed by the petitioner and the application are yet to be considered, the respondentTahsildar is directed to place before respondent No.2Committee, the application along with his recommendation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent No.2-Committee shall consider the application and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months thereafter.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:2004 WP No. 38692 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

Learned High Court Government Pleader is

¶41

permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶42

(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶43

Sri. K C Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K C Venkatesh 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

Sri P S Rajegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chowdareddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Surya Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H.R. Srinivasa Vs the Deputy Director of Land Records

Sri. Kariyappa Vs Smt. K P Shwetha