IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.15304/2018(KLR-REG) BETWEEN NAVEEN H V S/O VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, APPOVVAHOTTALA, UTTHARA BADAVANE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU-560 001 2. THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU 3. THE TAHSILDAR CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, HASSAN-573 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI.H, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.53 SEEKING REGULARIZATION OF HIS UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF THE LAND BEARING SY.No.22 OF BHIRANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURES A & B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner herein is seeking direction to second and third respondents, namely, Land Grant Committee, Chikkamagaluru District, and Tahasildar, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, to consider his application in Form No.53 for regularization of his alleged unauthorized cultivation of the land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres in Sy. No.22 situate in Bhiranahalli village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk.
3. It is stated that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in question since the year 1985. The application vide Annexure ‘A’ to the petition does not indicate the date on which it is filed. The endorsement vide Annexure ‘B’ to the petition also does not disclose as to when the application was received by Taluk office, Chikkamagaluru. When the age of the petitioner and number of years for which he is said to be in cultivation of the land in question as stated in the application are taken into account, it is evident that the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.53 is nothing but yet another bogus application with an intention to grab the Government land.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the question of entertaining this petition and issuing notice to the respondents calling upon them to file objections to this petition does not arise.
5. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma