Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court

with the following prayers:

<a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing

the 4^th Respondent Tahsildar to place Form

No.57, filed by the Petitioner for regularization

of her unauthorized cultivation of land bearing

Survey No.78, measuring 2 acres situated at

Tarikere Vilage, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,

as per ANNEXURE-A.

b)

To issue a Writ of mandamus

directing the 4^th Respondent Tahsildar to

submit the report along with ANNEXURE-E TO

G to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur

Division,

Tumkur

in

furtherance

of

ANNEXURE-D.=

2.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner placing

reliance upon documents produced along with petition

vociferously argues that his client has already field an

application in Form N0.57 seeking regularization of

3

unauthorized occupancy of the subject land and the

Deputy Commissioner has recommended the favourable

consideration of the same. Therefore, there should be a

direction issued to the Tahsildar to consider the subject

application in accordance with law.

3.

Learned AGA on request having accepted

notice for the official Respondents opposes the Petition

contending that petitioner is aware of the order dated

14.11.2018 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-B

whereby the subject land has been earmarked for burial

ground and therefore, the question of considering the

subject application would not arise. In support of his

contention, he banks upon Division Bench decision of this

Court in W.P.No.33675/2017 between PALANI and

CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off

on 06.06.2018.

4.

Learned AGA further submits that as between

the claim for burial ground and the claim for private

occupation, the former should override the latter regard

4

being had to the enormity of public inertest involved in it.

He also notifies to the Court that it has been the specific

stand of the State that no land is available in the entire

Tumakuru

District

for

grant

or regularization.

So

contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the Petition papers, this

Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of

learned AGA which is consistent with the Division Bench

decision cited supra. It is also in consonance with the

policy of State as promulgated under Rule 108(i) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

6.

The vehement submission of learned counsel

for the Petitioner that the Tahsildar had visited the spot

in question and there is some more land in respect of

which his clients calim can be considered, is bit difficult

to countenance. Courts in matters of this kind have held

that the grant of public property to the private ownership

is of serious nature since it results into depletion of State

5

assets and therefore unless the claim is clearly covered

by the Policy as enacted in law, the claims cannot be

favored.

In view of the above the writ petition being devoid

of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is,

costs having been made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv