IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 101368 OF 2026 (KLR-REG)

BETWEEN:

SRI. TIMMAPPA S/O SANNA BHAJARAPPA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ANEGUNDI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL- 583227.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, (LAND GRANTS-1), VIDHANA SOUDHA, DIST: BENGALURU- 560001.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANJANNA MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, E DIST. KOPPAL- 583231.

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E

3. THE TAHASILDAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH GANGAVATI, Date: 2026.02.21

11:31:24 +0530 DIST. KOPPAL- 583231.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF ORDER OR DIRECTION OR CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

09.09.2024 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.57 for regularisation of unauthorised occupation under Rule 108-CCC(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘Rules, 1966’) has been rejected, concerning land bearing Sy.No.204/*/* measuring 2 acres situated at Anegundi village, Gangavati taluk.

2. The petitioner claims that he is in possession and cultivation of the aforesaid land. Pursuant to the Government Notification dated 04.10.2018 (Annexure-B) permitting regularisation of unauthorised cultivation, he filed an application seeking regularisation of the land under the relevant provisions. The Revenue Inspector, after verification, prepared a checklist (Annexure-G) acknowledging the cultivation by the petitioner’s family. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar forwarded the report of the Revenue Inspector to respondent No.2–Deputy Commissioner; however, respondent No.2–Deputy Commissioner rejected the application by order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure-A) based on the report submitted by respondent No.3-Tahasildar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is non-speaking, does not disclose any reasons, and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to rejection, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the authorities have failed to consider the Government Order and the circulars governing regularisation, and that the petitioner, being in long possession, is entitled to consideration in accordance with law.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State submits that the application was scrutinized and upon examination, the petitioner was not found eligible for regularization.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and produced the material on record.

6. On perusal of impugned order (Annexure-A), it is evident that the order passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner is cryptic in nature. No reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioner has been held ineligible. There is no consideration of the eligibility criteria under Rule 108-CCC(1) and (2) of the Rules, 1966. The Government Circular dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure-C) and the checklist (Annexure-G) prepared by the Revenue Authorities acknowledging cultivation, have not been meaningfully considered in the impugned order.

7. It is well settled law that when an administrative authority passes an order affecting civil rights, the order m