1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.33641 OF 2016 (KLR-REG)

BETWEEN:

SMT. AKKAYAMMA,

WIFE OF PAPANNA,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

RESIDING AT GUNDUR VILLAGE,

BIDARAHALLI HUBLI,

MANDUR POST,

BANGALORE EAST TALUK 3 560049

&PETITIONER

(BY SMT.VIDYA.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

M.S.BUILDING,

BANGALORE 3 560 001.

2.

THE PRESIDENT,

COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF

UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION,

BANGALORE EAST TALUK,

BANGALORE 3 560 036..

3.

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK,

BANGALORE EAST TALUK,

BANGALORE 3 560 036.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ENDORSEMENT

ISSUED

BY

R-3

DATED

27.10.2014

AT

ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC.,

2

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER. THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner having suffered the rejection of application in

Form 53 for regularization of his unauthorized cultivation of

the subject land, is knocking at the doors of writ court for

assailing the order dated 27.10.2014, a copy whereof is at

Annexure-F; by the said Order, petitioner has been directed to

handover the land back to the Government, failing which,

threat of criminal prosecution is posed.

2.

After service of notice, the respondents having

entered appearance through the learned AGA oppose the writ

petition contending that Rule 108-CC of the KCR Rules, 1966

came to be loaded to the Statute Book vide Notification dated

06.11.1988 with effect from 09.11.1998; he points out that

admittedly petitioner had made the subject application in

Form-53 on 13.11.1998 and therefore, the land situate within

a radius of 18 Kms of the city of Bengaluru cannot be granted

or regularized in favour of persons unauthrorizedly occupying

the same.

3

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is in full

agreement with the submission of learned AGA and therefore,

declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

a) The vehement contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner that in identical set of facts, a coordinate Bench of

this Court has granted relief to the litigant is bit difficult to

countenance; in the cited decision i.e., A.P.KRISHNAPPA AND

ORS. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2017(2) KARLJ 229, the fact

matrix was different from the one at hands; there is no

reference to the amended Rule 108-CC which governs the

case of petitioner; it hardly needs to be stated that a case is

an authority for a proposition that it actually lays down in a

given fact matrix and not for all that which logically follows

from what has been so laid down vide Quinn vs Leathem

(1901) AC 495.

b) The further contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner that the Regularization Committee having noted the

fact that the land in question is beyond the prescribed radius

in Rule 108-CC had recommended case of the petitioner is of

no avail inasmuch as, it is the Tahasildar who has to measure

4

the distances especially when the power of rejection of the

recommendation is vested under Rule 108-D of Rules.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition being

devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly is dismissed,

costs having been made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS/Bsv