IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 28950 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. GULABI HARIJANA W/O CHANDU HARIJANA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT SRI. DURGA NILAYA, MATTALKATTE, KOLALGIRI POST, UPPUR VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576213.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN J. N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, COURT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATADRI-MANIPAL, UDUPI-576102.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101.

4. THE TAHASILDAR, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 213.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT IN NO.NCR/CR/88/20-21 DATED 8.8.2025 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-Q TO THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the endorsement dated 08.08.2025 at Annexure-Q, whereby the Tahsildar has declared that the application of the petitioner for regularisation being an ineligible application and stated that the application cannot be placed before the Committee for regularisation and accordingly, application of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the only point of ineligibility in terms of the proceedings before the Tahsildar, was the distance of situation of the land relating to the urban limits. It is further submitted that the Tahsildar's proceedings reflect a divergent view on different occasions relating to the distance.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in light of the provision of Rule 108-CCC (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'), the authorities are at liberty to declare applications as being ineligible and all applications filed need not be placed before the Regularisation Committee.

5. It is to be noticed that the endorsement in the present case has been given by the Tahsildar. The endorsement further refers to ineligibility in terms of the distance prescribed in the table appended to Section 94A (4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. However, in terms of Rule 108-CCC (3), the procedure prescribed is, after receiving a report from the officer authorized with his findings, the Tahsildar is required to forward ineligible applications to the Deputy Commissioner for necessary action and it is for the Deputy Commissioner to reject the ineligible applications.

6. It is further noticed that the Tahsildar is required to place all eligible applications with suitable recommendations to the Committee. It is clear that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to reject that application as is the case of the present endorsement. The Tahsildar can only forward the reports of the authorized officers and his opinion and place it before the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action, if the Tahsildar is of the view that the application is ineligible.

7. In light of the same, the endorsement at Annexure-Q is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the authorities to take appropriate action insofar as the reports and material available with them. All contentions are kept open.

8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of Sd/-

(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

JUDGE MCR