Sri Althaf Sab Vs State of Karnataka

BAGAR-HUKUM COMMITTEE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION FOR SORAB TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, SHIRALAKOPPA ROAD, SORAB, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, SHIRALAKOPPA ROAD, SORAB, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.V.SESHU, HCGP)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 18.10.2021 (ANNEXURE- A ), 18.10.2024 (ANNEXURE- B ) AND 24.10.2025 (ANNEXURE- C ) FOR ISSUANCE OF GRANT CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT LAND CULTIVATED BY THE PETITIONERS IN SY.NO. 2 OF TALAGADDE VILLAGE, SORAB TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT (ANNEXURE- D ) AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:9550 WP No. 782 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

It is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the application filed by the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners' father and Petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5, the Committee for regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation passed a resolution on 24.08.1992 recommending grant of lands in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners' father and the 3^rd , 4^th and 5^th petitioners respectively. However, the local villagers filed a suit in O.S.No.400/1993 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Sorab seeking permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.1998 and thereafter, a regular appeal was filed by the plaintiffs and regular appeal No.8/2007 was dismissed on 17.08.2009. Due to the pendency of the

¶33

suit, the Tahsildar did not proceed to collect the kimmat and grant the lands in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners'

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9550 WP No. 782 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

father and Petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5. The petitioners have given several representations to the respondent-Tahsildar to issue saguvali chit and enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. However, the Tahsildar has not done anything pursuant to the representations given by the petitioners.

¶38

The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 – Tahsildar, Sorab Taluk to consider the representations given by the petitioner, verify the records and find out whether 1^st and 2^nd petitioners' father and the 3^rd , 4^th and 5^th petitioners were indeed granted the land. If it is found that the Committee had in fact regularised the land in favour of 1^st and 2^nd petitioners' father and the 3^rd , 4^th and 5^th petitioners, the Tahasildar shall proceed to pass necessary orders issuing Saguvali chit, inform the petitioners regarding the kimmath, collect the same and enter their names in the land records pursuant to the issuance of the Saguvali chit. With respect to the 1^st and 2^nd petitioner herein, the

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9550 WP No. 782 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Tahsildar shall enter the name of Sri.Bashasab in the revenue records and pursuant to that verify the aspect of the legal heirs of Sri.Bashasab, issue notice to all concerned and after satisfying himself proceed to enter the names of the legal heirs of Sri.Bashasab in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Ordered accordingly.

¶43

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader is

¶44

granted four weeks time to file his memo of appearance.

¶45

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶46

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Althaf Sab v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Althaf Sab v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H N Baratheesh Vs the Special Assistant Commissioner

Sri L G Ramesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Manjegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Devamathe, Vs the State of Karnataka