IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11078 OF 2020 (KLR-LG)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O NANJEGOWDA R/AT CHANNENAHALLI VILLAGE KIKERI HOBLI, K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA-571 426 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. SUDHINDRA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT Digitally signed MANDYA - 571 426 by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSION PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426

3. THE THASILDAR K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426

4. SMT BHAGYA W/O LATE RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

5. SMT ANASUYA W/O KALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

6. SMT KANTHAMMA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

7. SRI SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

8. SRI AMASIGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

9. SRI RAJEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR 10. SRI PUTTARAJU S/O LATE BOJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

11. SRI C B SHIVARAJU S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT MAJOR

12. SRI S ARUN S/O LATE C R SHIVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

13. SRI RAJEGOWDA S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

14. SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O SANNANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHANNENAHALLI VILLAGE KIKERI HOBLI, K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA-571 426 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R14)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE-K FROM THE FILE OF THE R-1 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RA.NO.09/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner who is stated to be the unauthorised occupant of property in Sy. No.8 of Channenahalli, Kilkeri Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, to an extent of 2 acres 4 guntas has called in question the correctness of the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-K, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has modified the order of the Assistant Commissioner and disposed off the appeal while directing the respondents to reserve an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas for Ashraya Scheme.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his application under Form-50 was filed for an extent of 2 acres on 22.06.1991. It is further submitted that in terms of the sketch prepared by the Tahsildar, it was pointed out that the petitioner was in possession of an extent of 0.90 acres and sketch is enclosed at Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the sketch is prepared in terms of actual possession. It is also pointed out that the mahazar prepared would also reveal that the villagers have no objection for grant of land as claimed by the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the proceedings in the year 2002, the committee has granted only an extent of 1 acre out of the total extent of 2 acres 4 guntas. It is submitted that the claim insofar as 1 acre is concerned has been granted to the petitioner and necessary grant certificate has also been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the committee not taking note of the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the remaining 1 acre, he had approached the Assistant Commissioner and the proceedings have culminated at Annexure-J. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner having paid the penalty/fine for the entire area and when he is found to be in possession of 2 acres, there was no reason for the committee for not having recognized the right of the petitioner for the remaining 1 acre.

4. The Assistant Commissioner by his order had directed that the claim of the petitioner for the remaining 1 acre also be placed before the Committee. Though the petitioner had been conferred with relief as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the villagers, it is stated have approached the Deputy Commiss