IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO. 5937 OF 2025 (KLR-REG)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NAGANNA

S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA @GADDE GOWDA

AGED 65 YEARS

2. SRI CHIKKARAJU

S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA @GADDE GOWDA

AGED 58 YEARS

3. SMT. VEENA.H.R

W/O LATE LINGARAJU.G

AGED 45 YEARS

4. MADHUSHREE. N

D/O LATE LINGARAJU.G

Digitally signed AGED 21 YEARS

by JUANITA

THEJESWINI

5. CHINMAYEE Location: HIGH

COURT OF D/O LATE LINGARAJU.G

KARNATAKA AGED 19 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDANAHALLI VILLAGE

KASABA HOBLI, LOKOJANAHALLI POST

CHANNAPATANA TALUK

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDA BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF LAND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB- DIVISION, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

4. TAHASILDAR CHANNAPATNA TALUK CHANNAPATNA - 562 160.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF LAND IN SY.NO.6 OF MULUMGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TLAUK TO AN EXTENT OF 3-00 ACRE OF LAND BY CONSIDERING THE FORM NO.50 UNDER SECTION 108-C OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE RULES 1966 AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS (ANNX-C) DATED 03.09.1991, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed in Form No.50 seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation of 2 acres of land in Survey No.6 of Mulumgere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, on 03.09.1991, has not been considered till date. Therefore, the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to consider the said application and till consideration, direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.

3. Having regard to the contentions raised in the writ petition and submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that Respondent No.4-Tahsildar was duty bound to place the application filed by the petitioner before Respondent No.2, ‘Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation of Land’ and the Committee was also duty bound to consider the application and pass necessary orders. That exercise not having been taken by the respondent authorities, the respondents cannot evict the petitioner without consideration of the application of the petitioner.

4. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to Respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Channapatna Taluk, Bengaluru South District, to verify from the records as to whether such an application filed by the petitioner in the year 1991, is pending consideration. If it is found that such an application was indeed filed by the petitioner and the application is yet to be considered, the Respondent-Tahsildar is directed to place before Respondent No.5-Committee, the application along with his recommendation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, Respondent No.5-Committee shall consider the application and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months thereafter.

5. Needless to observe that till the application of the petitioner is disposed of, in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the possession of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property shall not be disturbed.

Ordered accordingly.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within