1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the auction notice dated 30th November 2005 issued by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-L. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to relax the condition for the purpose of regularisation of his unauthorized occupation over the land in question situated in the outskirts of Ramanagaram City. Certain consequential reliefs are also sought for.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is in unauthorized cultivation of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.55 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas of Jiginahally and 0.12 guntas in Sy.No.83 of Bolappanahalli village, Kasba Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore Rural District since 40 years; he has been paying necessary land revenue to the Government regularly; he has raised coconut and mango trees apart from teak trees in the land. The lands in question are belonging to the State Government, since he is in unauthorized occupation of the land for more than 40 years, he made an application for regularisation of his unauthorized occupation under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the Land Grant Committee granted the prayer of the petitioner and consequently the unauthorised occupation of land of the petitioner was regularized; the Tahsildhar as well as the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Land Grant Committee; the matter reached the Deputy Commissioner; the Deputy Commissioner without taking any decision referred the matter to the State Government for consideration; the State Government again sent back the records to the Deputy Commissioner for initiating action; since nothing has taken place thereafter, according to the petitioner, his application for regularisation is still pending consideration. In the mean-while, the State Government has issued notification as per Annexure-L dated 30th November 2005 for auctioning the properties in question alongwith other properties. The 5th respondent participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder; however sale is not confirmed as on this day in favour of the 5th respondent.

According to the petitioner, he is entitled for regularisation and consequently, the auction notification issued by respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary.

3. Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued in support of the writ petition by contending that subsequently inserted provision i.e., Section 94-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is not applicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as, the application is filed much prior to 20th March 1991, on which date, Section 94-A is inserted in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the State Government ought to have relaxed the condition relating to the distance of 1km from City Municipal Council as per Rule 108-N of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules; since the petitioner is poor and is entitled to grant of land under the Rules, the authority should have regularized the unauthorized occupation of the land of the petitioner.

Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of 5th respondent opposed the writ petition by contending that the Government records are tampered at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner seems to have not filed application for regularisation of his unauthorized occupation. It seems his father has filed application for regularisation, but however, his name is scored off in the original records of the State Government and the name of the petitioner is inserted. Even assuming that the petitioner has made an application for regularisation, the same is made after 20th May 1991, on which date, Section 94-A is inserted in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and therefore, there is no question of relaxing the condition relating to 1km from the city limits for the purpose of grant of prayer of the petitioner relating to regularisation of unauthorized occupation of the land.

Learned Govt. Advocate Sri. E.S. Indiresh, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 also opposed the