DODDA SOMASETTY Vs. BABY SHASHIKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called into question the second respondent"s endorsement, dated 11-9-2009 (Annexure-D). She has also sought a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider her application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner claims to have been unauthorisedly cultivating the land measuring 2 acres at Sy. No. 156 of Hulimangala Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for over 20 years. It is not in dispute that the land in question is a Government gomal land. She made an application, dated 3-9-1991 (Annexure-B) for the regularisation of her unauthorised occupation of the said land. THE respondent 2 has issued an impugned endorsement intimating that the petitioner"s application is rejected, as the land in question comes within a forbidden zone of 18 kilometers from Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike limits.

(3.) SRI Sadashivaiah brings to my notice the provisions contained in Rule 97(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called "the said Rules") in support of his contention that if the gomal land fall within the specified radius, the application for the grant of land can be disposed of only by the Deputy Commissioner. The provisions contained in Rule 97(5) of the said Rules is extracted hereinbelow: