The petitioner has called into question the second respondent’s endorsement, dated 11-9-2009 (Annexure-D). She has also sought a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider her application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner claims to have been unauthorisedly cultivating the land measuring 2 acres at Sy. No. 156 of Hulimangala Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for over 20 years. It is not in dispute that the land in question is a Government gomal land. She made an application, dated 3-9-1991 (Annexure-B) for the regularisation of her unauthorised occupation of the said land. The respondent 2 has issued an impugned endorsement intimating that the petitioner’s application is rejected, as the land in question comes within a forbidden zone of 18 kilometers from Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike limits.

3. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is presented.

4. Sri Sadashivaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement is without jurisdiction. The third respondent has no competence whatsoever, to consider the petitioner’s application. It is Sri Sadashivaiah’s grievance that the application ought to have been placed before the Competent Authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner.

5. Sri Sadashivaiah brings to my notice the provisions contained in Rule 97(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called ‘the said Rules’) in support of his contention that if the gomal land fall within the specified radius, the application for the grant of land can be disposed of only by the Deputy Commissioner. The provisions contained in Rule 97(5) of the said Rules is extracted hereinbelow:

“97(5) From the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 2007, the gomal lands in villages comprised within the municipal corporation limits and the areas within 25kms. from the outer limits of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, 10 kms. from the outer limits of the other City Corporations and 5 kms. from the outer limits of the City Municipal Councils shall be disposed off by the Deputy Commissioner subject to the general orders of the State Government in this behalf”.

6. Nextly, the learned Counsel relies on Rule 8(6) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called ‘1969 Rules’) and submits that the Tahsildar ought not to have placed the application before the respondent 3, he ought to have placed the matter before the Deputy Commissioner. The same provisions are extracted hereinbelow:

“8(6) Where the Tahsildar is not competent to grant land under these rules or where the extent of land applied for is more than extent of land which he is competent to grant he shall submit the application to the officer who is competent under these rules to grant such extent of land along with the report in the matter and such Competent Officer may pass orders granting the land”.

7. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent 3 has no competence even to reject the petitioner’s application. It could have only been returned the application to the respondent 2 for placing the application before the Deputy Commissioner. He has also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others v Holeyappa and Others (2007(3) Kar. L.J. 433 (DB): ILR 2007 Kar.259 (DB)). He has read out the Head Note ‘C’ which reads as follows.-

“(C) KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964, Sections 94-A, 94-B and 94-C of the Act and Rules- Rights given under the statute- Object and purpose of- Diversion of Gomal land for other purposes- Held, a right given under a statute in favour of unauthorised occupants can neither be taken away nor the provisions made nugatory unless the provisions of Sections 94-A, 94-B and 94-C of the Act and Rules are declared as unconstitutional- Further held, there is nothing wrong in diverting either a gomal land or any other reserve