SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 188819

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RAJESH RAI K
SRI MULLEGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 13766/2020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

WRIT PETITION NO. 13766 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MULLEGOWDA

S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

R/AT CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE

HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 121.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU - 560 001.

Digitally signed

by

SHARADAVANI

2. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF

B

UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION

Location: High

Court of BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 121.

Karnataka

3. THE TAHSILDAR

BELUR TALUK

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 121.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DTD.16.8.1991 AT ANNEXURE-A WITHIN THE STIPULATED

TIME AND QUASH THE EVICTION NOTICE AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE R-3 THE TAHSILDAR AND DIRECT THE R-3 NOT TO PRECIPITATE THE MATTER PENDING CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE R-2 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 16.08.1991 as per Annexure-A.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the land bearing Sy.No.80 measuring 3 acres situated at Yelahanka Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, (for brevity "Subject lands") since from 1970. Accordingly, he filed an application under Form 53 dated 16.08.1991 before the Tahsildar for regularization of his cultivation by referring the application along with necessary documents to respondent No.2-Regularization Committee. The Tahsildar after receiving the application conducted a survey and prepared the sketch in respect of the subject lands in presence of the Surveyor, Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector. On the basis of the sketch, the Authorities have prepared Ahawal Takth. Thereafter, there was no progress in the matter. Later in the year 2019, the Tahsildar has issued notice under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity "the KLR Act") to the petitioner to vacate the subject land as per Annexure-F, on the ground that, out of the subject lands, 2 acres of land was reserved for Rehabilitation of Yagachi Reservoir Project and also for ex-soldiers.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that land bearing Sy.No.80 in total measuring 197 acres and out of the said land an extent of 125 acres reserved for Rehabilitation of Yagachi Reservoir Project and 2 acres land was reserved for ex-soldiers. Despite vast land is available and since the petitioner is in continued possession and cultivation of the land ever since from the year 1970, his application may be considered.

4. Learned AGA submits that since the subject land was reserved for ex-soldiers, there is no excess land available in the said survey number and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. As could be gathered from the records, based on the application filed by the petitioner under Form No.53, survey report was prepared by the Survey Officer as per Annexure-B and Ahawal Takth was drawn by the Tahsidar. Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was not attended by the Tahsildar by placing the same before the Regularization Committee. Per contra, the Tahsildar has issued notice as per Annexure-F in the year 2019. Under such circumstances, in my considered view the claim of the petitioner has to be considered by the Regularization Committee. Accordingly, Writ Petition succeeds, mandamus is issued. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.1991 as per Annexure-A by pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top