IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.29112/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O SRI. MARULA ARDHYA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT DEVARA HOSAHALLI SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY IT’S SECRETARY - TAHSILDHAR.
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONMDENT TO CONSIDER HIS REQUEST FOR GRANT UNDER SECTION 108-J OF THE K.L.R. RULES OF 1966 IN RESPECT OF SY NO.15, IN EXTENT OF ACRES OF LAND SITUATED AT DEVARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, TUMKUR, AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLETE THE PROCEEDINGS AT AN EARLY GIVEN POINT OF TIME.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner claims to be in occupation of land bearing Sy.No.15 measuring 4 acres in Devara Hosahalli village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and is said to have submitted an application for regularization of his unauthorized occupation on 25.04.1991 as per acknowledgment – Annexure-A. On account of non- consideration of said application/representation, yet another application is said to have been submitted by petitioner on 07.08.1993 (Annexure-B). Later Petitioner has submitted application in form No.57 under Rule 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 which is at Annexure-E. RTC extracts for the years 1975-76 to 2018-19 would disclose the name of petitioner having been entered in column 12(2) to an extent of 2 acres.
3. The fact remains that applications filed by the petitioner has not been considered as the committee for regularization is yet to be constituted. Hence, it would suffice if a direction is issued that on constitution of such committee, it shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of 6 months from its constitution.
However, it is made clear that in the event of application having been considered and disposed of already petitioner shall be intimated the outcome of such consideration. Ordered accordingly.
Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE *sp