BHADRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dtd. 30/3/2022 passed in WP.No.5466/2021 (KLR-RES) by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed an application seeking regularization of his land and issuance of a grant certificate. The committee for regularization, after conducting an enquiry, passed a resolution on 18/12/1992 along with other applicants and ordered to issue Form No.52. It is submitted that thereafter, number of proceedings were conducted by the committee and finally on 12/5/1997, the order came to be passed rejecting the application. However, the said order was passed without providing any opportunity to the appellant and the said order was never communicated to him. It is only when endorsement dtd. 24/6/2019 was issued to one Sri.Mariyappa, the appellant inquired and found that his application was rejected on the ground that the land sought for grant falls within a 5 kms radius of the City. It is further submitted that the action of the authority was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga, who confirmed the order of the committee vide order dtd. 7/11/2020. The said order was thereafter assailed in a writ petition. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has not adjudicated with regard to the correctness of the orders of the regularization committee and the Assistant Commissioner as the application for regularization was filed on 6/7/1988. The Committee as well as the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider the fact that the relevant date would be the date of filing of an application and on the said date, the bar of 5 kms would not have been attracted. It is contended that this Court in the case of Mahadeva and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others WP.No.19474-19479/2016 dtd. 1/7/2016 held that the law applicable as on the date of filing of the application has to be taken into account for consideration of an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge in the case of Sri.B.R.Balakrishna and Others v. State of Karnataka WP.No.18208/2021 dtd. 29/3/2022 considered similar issue and matter was remanded back to the competent authority to reconsider the issue. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by directing the committee for regularization to reconsider the issue on merits.

(3.) Smt.Pramodini Kishan, learned AGA and Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and respondent No.5 respectively support the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the application of the appellant was placed before the committee on 18/12/1992, however, the committee did not consider the application and no order was passed for regularization. The same was again placed before the committee on 12/5/1997 and the committee rejected the said application on the ground that the land in question falls within a distance of 5kms from the limits of the Shivamogga City Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that the appellate authority and the learned Single Judge have categorically held that the committee for regularization had rejected the application filed by the appellant and no rights have been fructified in favour of the appellant in respect of the land concerned, which does not call for any interference. It is also submitted that the appellant has received compensation as per the government order dtd. 19/7/2007, hence, his right to seek consideration of his application for regularization would not arise and the said aspect has been suppressed in the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.