IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.12528/2018(KLR-REG) BETWEEN SRI N G SOMASHEKAR S/O GUDNAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, NALLAKKANA DODDI VILLAGE, THARALU POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 560 082 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADEESHACHARI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560009 3. THE CHAIRMAN REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION LAND GRANT COMMITTTEE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-B DATED 12.07.1991 / 15.07.1991 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is seeking writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider his application dated 12.07.1991 / 15.07.1991 vide Annexure ‘B’ to the petition for regularization of unauthorized occupation in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres in Sy. No.35 situate at Gulakamale village, hamlet of Nallakkana Doddi village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District. He has also sought for direction to the respondents to issue him saguvali chit in respect of the said lands.
2. According to the petitioner, he filed an application in Form No.50 before the second respondent – Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, on 15.07.1991 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition) and same was pending consideration for long time. Meanwhile, it is stated that an order has been passed by the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited on 22.12.2010 in case No.CTF/14/2010-11 indicating that the lands which are situate within 18 kms from the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike should not be considered for regularization of unauthorized occupation and in respect of lands which are already regularized, regularization should be cancelled. Subsequently, the said order is communicated to the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner (enforcement cell for prevention of unauthorized occupation), which would indicate that regularization of unauthorized cultivation of lands which are situate within 18 kms. from the Corporation limits cannot be considered.
3. In that view of the matter, the land which is said to be in occupation of the petitioner being identified as land situate within 18 Kms. from Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits as per the list prepared pursuant to the amendment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The application of the petitioner cannot be considered by the authorities. Therefore, the question of granting any direction to the respondents does not arise.
4. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Rama Naik vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others reported in ILR 2007 Kar 1521, which is distinguishable on facts in the present case. In the said proceedings, grant order was passed prior to coming into force of Section 94-A, which was inserted by Act No.2 of 1991, of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In the instant case, holding of the petitioner is not regularized by the authorities pursuant to the notification in bringing restriction regarding regularization of unauthorized occupation of lands. Therefore, the said judgment would not have any bearing on the facts of the present case.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma