Disposed

Murthy M v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026WP/733/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to consider a Form No.53 application of 2019 for regularization of unauthorized occupation of land in Survey No.47, Vallappanahalli Village. The Court held the Tahsildar duty-bound to place it before the Committee and disposed of the petition with time-bound directions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-1 Tahsildar to verify the 2019 application and place it with recommendation before respondent-2 Committee within four weeks; Committee to pass orders within two months thereaft

Murthy M Vs the Tahasildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2364 WP No. 733 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 733 OF 2026 (KLR-REG)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MURTHY M S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NO. 07, VALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562102

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT–562102.

¶16

THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT–562102. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA., AGA)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2364 WP No. 733 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 29.01.2019 AS PER ANNX-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶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 Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by him in Form No.53 seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Survey No.47 of Vallappanahalli Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, on 29.01.2019, has not been considered till date. Therefore, the prayer in the petition is to direct the

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2364 WP No. 733 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

respondents to consider the application in Form No.53 dated 29.01.2019 given by the petitioner.

¶29

Having regard to the contentions raised in the writ petition and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.1-Tahsildar was duty bound to place the application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, ‘Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation’ and the Committee was also duty bound to consider the application and pass necessary orders.

¶30

Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.1-Tahsildar, Shidlaghatta Taluk, to verify from the records as to whether such an application filed by the petitioner in the year 2019, is pending consideration. If it is found that such an application was indeed filed by the petitioner and the application is yet to be considered, the respondentTahsildar is directed to place before respondent - Committee, the application along with his recommendation

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:2364 WP No. 733 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶35

copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent-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.

¶36

Ordered accordingly.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶40

KLY

¶41

CT: JL

Murthy M v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murthy M v. the Tahasildar

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. Kariyappa Vs Smt. K P Shwetha

Sri. K v Ashwathanarayana Vs Smt. Shwetha N R

D Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rathna Vs State of Karnataka

Shanthakumari Vs the State of Karnataka