RAVIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the impugned order dtd. 7/3/2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub Division and the petitioners are also seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities more particularly, the Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioners in respect of 2 Acres 20 Guntas of land in Survey No.17 of Kattigenahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk in terms of the order of regularization dtd. 14/10/2010 passed by respondent No.4 - Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation.

(2.) Sri.Karthik.V, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that it is not disputed at the hands of respondents that the Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation had indeed passed an order on 14/10/2010 pursuant to Form No. 53 filed by the petitioners on 17/12/1998. Earlier, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. Nos.36231-34/2011 and this Court by order dtd. 8/11/2011 directed the Tahsildar to consider the application filed by the petitioners for issuance of Saguvali Chit within a time frame. Nevertheless, when the Tahsildar did not comply with the directions issued by this Court, a contempt petition was filed in CCC Nos.234-237/2012 and during the course of the proceeding before the Division Bench, an endorsement dtd. 28/3/2012 was issued by the Tahsildar, refusing to issue Saguvali Chit on the ground that the land in question was within the prohibited distance of 18 kilometres, in terms of Sec. 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Tahsildar also moved the Assistant Commissioner invoking Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioners. However, learned counsel would submit that such an appeal whether it was filed by the Tahsildar or not nevertheless, no orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner cancelling the grant.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that at Annexure-F there is a communication dtd. 10/7/2012 made by the Asst. Executive Engineer of the Department of PWD addressed to one Sri. Vishnukumar, who is also from the same village while stating that Kattigenahalli village is at a distance of 23.60 kilometres from the boundary of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Further, learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of SRI. ASHWATHAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS,W.P. No.2411/2022 dtd. 18/2/2022. wherein under similar circumstances, it was held that at any rate the applications cannot be rejected on the ground that the lands are within the prohibited distance. The distance was to be measured as per the geographical jurisdiction of then the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, as it was on the date of the application filed by the petitioners. This Court had also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to file an affidavit and on the basis of the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, this Court issued directions to the Deputy Commissioner to re-consider the application and pass orders having regard to the observations made by this Court as to how the distance has to be measured, having regard to the geographical jurisdiction of the local body at the point of time when the application was filed by the petitioners. However, learned counsel would submit that in the present case, a decision was already taken by the Committee recommending grant of the land in question but the Tahsildar refused to issue Saguvali Chit. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 7/3/2018 may be set aside while directing the Tahsildar to issue Saguvali Chit.