IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.27331/2012 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
SRI. PUTTEGOWDA AGE: 85 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA R/O DASANAKOPPALU VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. S M BABU, ADV.) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION MYSORE.
2. THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.02.2012, AS AT ANN-E, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.1 AND THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.01.2011 AS AT ANN-B, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.2 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 is an applicant in Form No.53 under Rule 108CC(1) under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of the lands in respect of 0.1½ guntas in Sy. No.104, 0.25 guntas in Sy. No.105 and 2 guntas of land in Sy. No.107 of Martikyatanahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. His grievance is that his application was required to be considered in accordance with Section 94A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with Rule 108D of the land Revenue Rules which state that the said application shall be placed before the Committee constituted for the purpose of regularization of unauthorized occupation of land. However, the said application has not been considered in accordance with the aforesaid Rules.
2. In the instant case, the application of the petitioner was not placed before the Committee, instead, it was placed before the Chairman, who has passed the impugned order. To substantiate the same, the petitioner would rely on an endorsement issued by the office of the Tahsildar, Mysuru bearing No.LNDPR.29/2011-12 dated 28.04.2012 wherein it would indicate that no meeting of the Committee was conducted on 24.8.2001, i.e., the date on which the application of the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, the impugned order is passed by the Chairman in his individual capacity and not by the Committee. In the aforesaid facts, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Committee to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules.
3. With such observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-