Karnataka High Court
Bajjappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
WP No. 20668 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 20668 OF 2022 (KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. BAJJAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O BIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
W/O LATE ALALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
4. SMT. GULLAMMA,
Digitally signed W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
by V KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
6. MUNISWAMY,
S/O YALLAPPA @ SOUTHIKARI YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
7. SMT. KVERAMMA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
WP No. 20668 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
8. SHANKARAPPA,
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
9. SMT. KAVERAMMA,
W/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
10. SMT. LAKSHMI,
D/O YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
11. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O GULLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
12. VENKATESH C,
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
13. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O YALLAPPA
14. BALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE VENKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
15. MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
S/O MOTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
16. MANJUNATHA,
S/O RAMASWAMY,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
WP No. 20668 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
17. SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
18. POOJAPPA,
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
19. SMT. JAYANTHI,
W/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
20. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE ABBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
21. VENKATESH,
S/O BIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
22. NAGARAJU S,
S/O SAMPANAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
23. ANNAPPA,
S/O NAGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
24. YALLAPPA,
S/O LATE CHWODAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
25. NAGARAJU,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
WP No. 20668 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
26. GULLAMMA,
W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
27. MUNISWAMY,
S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
28. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
29. VENKATESH,
S/O CHIKKAGURUMURTIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJULA D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
WP No. 20668 of 2022
3. THE THASILDHAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TQ,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
C/O DEPUTY THASILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. MUNINARAYANAMMA,
S/O LATE A. MUNISWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.299,
DODDATHGORU VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 100.
6. SMT. VARA MAHALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
7. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
8. SRI. PRAKASH,
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
9. SRI. KUMAR,
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
WP No. 20668 of 2022
10. SRI. RAVI,
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 10 ARE
RESIDING AT NANJUNDAYYA ROAD,
SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.
11. SRI. M. MARIYAPPA,
S/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
12. SRI. K.D. CHANGAPPA,
SRI. K.P. DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
13. SRI. GANGAPPA,
SRI. KUPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT NOS. 11 TO 13 ARE
R/AT DODDATOGAURU VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T.N. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R7, R8, R10 TO R12 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS IN FORM
NO.51 AND 53 OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION OF
UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
WP No. 20668 of 2022
104 AND 105 OF DODDATHGARU VILLAGE, BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, ANNEXURE-A, A1 TO A46 AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Although notice was directed against the private
respondents and there is representation for respondent
No.5 only, nevertheless this Court is of the considered
opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of without
affecting the rights of the private respondents.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that they
have filed application in form Nos.51 and 53 in the year
1983, 1991 and 1998 claiming regularization of
unauthorized occupation of various pieces of land in
Sy.Nos.104 and 105 of Doddathoguru Village, Bangalore
South Taluk, which totally measures about 23 acres.
However, it is submitted that their applications have not
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
been disposed of by the Committee for regularization of
unauthorized occupation.
3. In the meanwhile, it appears that the private
respondents had filed a writ petition in WP.No.20627/2016
seeking directions to the respondent-authorities to enter
their names in the land records, since various pieces of
land have been granted to them by the Committee in the
year 1978. It was contended that saguvali chits were also
issued on 21.06.1978. This Court by order dated
06.03.2020 issued direction while rejecting the contention
of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tashildar that the
claim made by the petitioners is concocted, while directing
the authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the
land records.
4. This Court had rejected the contention of the
revenue authorities having regard to the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that actions must be taken within
a reasonable time, where no period of limitation is
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
specified, even if it is a contention of the authorities that
fraud has been placed and grants have been obtained.
5. When the orders passed by the Court were not
complied, the said petitioners filed a contempt petition in
CCC.No.999/2023. The Division Bench while recording the
submissions of the learned Government Advocate that the
name of the petitioners will be entered in the land record,
disposed of the contempt petition granting a period of
eight weeks to the respondents to comply with the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. That being the position, if it is the contention of
the petitioners that they are not in any where claiming the
lands that where already granted in favour of the private
respondents herein, but they are in possession of various
other pieces of land in a larger extent of 23 acres, the
Tashildar is required to place the application to the
petitioners before the Committee along with the
recommendation.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7523
Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of
with a specific direction to the Tashildar, Bangalore South
Taluk to place the application to the petitioners along with
his recommendation before the committee for
regularization of unauthorized occupation within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The Committee shall thereafter consider the
application and pass the orders as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within a period of two months
from the date of which the application is placed by the
Tashildar before the Committee.
Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
CT: BHK
