WP/7213/2022 of MANJU Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 30 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. In this Writ Petition, petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus to respondent no.4 to collect TT fees/fine and to issue saguvali chit in respect of the land in question, inter alia, sought for a direction to respondent No.4 to place the applications along with necessary records before respondent No.5-Committee for further action.

2. Heard Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Dayanand S. Patil, learned counsel

HC-KAR

for the petitioners and Sri. Aditya Diwakara, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that, petitioners belong to Hakki Pikki community and they are in possession of various extent of land in land bearing Sy.No.111 of Harobenahalli Village, Holaluru Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and petitioners have made an applications in Form-53 seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation, as per Annexures-A1 to A3. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners have filed appeal before respondent No.3 as against rejection of their consideration for regularisation of unauthorised occupation and respondent No.3 by order dated 22.07.2017 has arrived at the conclusion to remit the matter to the Committee to re-assess whether the land in question is situate within 5 Kms. from the Shivamogga City. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel referred to the resolution of the respondent – Committee dated 16.04.2021 wherein the Committee had taken a decision as to grant land in favour of the petitioners herein based on the order passed in respect of

HC-KAR

similarly placed persons and accordingly, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.3067-68/2019 and connected Writ Appeals disposed of on 18.09.2019 in respect of the very same survey number, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondent – authorities to consider the case of the appellants therein and to issue the grant certificates. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that, as similarly placed persons have been granted land by the respondent – authorities and on similar lines, as directed by the Division Bench, appropriate relief has to be granted to the petitioners, accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, Sri. Aditya Diwakara, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that the authorities have to take decision in the matter in accordance with the provision contained under Rule 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

HC-KAR

5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, petitioners claim to be unauthorised occupants of the land in question and initially the claim made by the petitioners was rejected by respondent No.3 by order dated 22.07.2017(Annexure-B), however, directed respondent No.4 to ascertain if the land in question is situate within

Kms. from the Town Municipal Corporation, Shivamogga and thereafter place before the respondent No.5 – Committee to regularise the land as per the provisions of Section 108 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In pursuance thereto, the respondent – Committee, by resolution dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure-C) has arrived at the conclusion that as the grant has been already made in favour of 126 persons based on the order passed by this Court and therefore, the case of the petitioners has to be considered after obtaining appropriate report from the Deputy Tahsildar / Revenue Inspector. Pursuant to the same, perusal of the Writ Petition would indicate that reports have been filed by the Deputy Tahsildar, Nada Kacheri, Shivamogga, wherein, it is stated that

HC-KAR

the petitioners herein are cultivating the land in question for more than 30 years.

6. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, as the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.3067-68/2019, in respect of the very same survey number has directed the respondent therein to issue grant certificate in favour of the appellants therein, at this juncture, it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.7 to 9 of the Judgment dated 18.09.2019, which is as below:

“7. We have carefully considered the said submissions. The main reason for rejecting the writ petitions was based on the decision of the Committee dated 4th July 2001. However, Annexures-‘B to B5’ to the writ petitions show that the said decision was set aside and the applications of the appellants were directed to be considered by the Committee. Subsequently, by the decision at Annexure-‘C’, the Committee accepted the cases of the appellants and directed grant to be issued. The said subsequent decision of the Committee has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge.

HC-KAR

8. Rule 108-D of the said Rules of 1966 lays down the procedure of the Committee. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 108-D provides that the Committee constituted in accordance with Section 94-A of the said Act of 1964 read with Rule 108-D has a power to recommend grant of land to unauthorised occupant. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 108-D of the said Rules of 1966 lays down that on the basis of such recommendations, the Tahsildar who shall be the Secretary of the Committee shall, issue an order of grant and issue certificate of grant or saguvali chit.

9. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and accordingly, the appellants must succeed. Hence, we pass the following order:

(i) The impugned order dated 8th July 2019 is hereby set aside;

(ii) We direct the fourth respondent who is the Secretary of the fifth respondent Committee to take action in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 108-D of the said Rules of 1966 in accordance with the recommendations of the fifth respondent Committee in the decision of the said Committee recorded in the Meeting held on 2nd January 2018;

HC-KAR

(iii) Necessary compliance shall be made by the fourth respondent within a period of two months from the date of which a copy of this Judgment is produced in his office;

(iv) The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.”

7. Following the declaration of law made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.3067-68/2019, I find force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as there is no dispute that the petitioners herein claim to be unauthorised occupants of land in question, as the respondent – Committee has already taken a decision as per the resolution dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure-C) and case of the petitioners has to be considered for grant of regularisation of unauthorised occupation in respect of the subject land.

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) Writ of mandamus is hereby issued to respondent No.4 to collect TT fees / fine in respect of the land in question within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of

HC-KAR

this order and thereafter issue saguvali chit in respect of the subject land as claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.3067-68/2019 and connected appeals, disposed of on 18.09.2019.

(iii) Consequently, I.A.1/2026 stands allowed.

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12