[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Ashwathappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10018-DB
WA No. 588 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ASHWATHAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. CHANNARAYAPPA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. K KRISHNAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by 4. SRI MUNIANJANAPPA
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K S/O LATE BALAPPA
Location: AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 5. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE BALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
6. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O PILLANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
RAJANAKUNTE POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10018-DB
WA No. 588 of 2024
HC-KAR
NOW YALAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU 560065
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NATARAJA B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF
UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUBDIVISION
BENGALURU 560001
4. THE TAHASILDAR
YELAHANKA NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560065
5. THE RAJIV GANDHI RURAL CORPORATION LTD
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO 1, 2, 3, 4 IT PARK,
1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
RAJAJINAGARA, INDUSTRIAL AREA
RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU 560044
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER (TECH)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1-R4;
SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THE WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORDS IN WP
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10018-DB
WA No. 588 of 2024
HC-KAR
No-6578/2023 (KLR-RES) FROM THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The writ appeal has been taken up in the revised call
as neither the counsel for the appellants nor the appellants
were present on the first call.
2. Even in the revised call, there is no representation on
behalf of the appellants.
3. Sri M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned AGA appearing for
respondent No.1 and Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for
the caveator/Respondent No.5 have made submissions on
behalf of the respondents, on the merits of the appeal.
4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed
impugning the judgment and order 11.03.2024 passed by
NC: 2026:KHC:10018-DB
HC-KAR
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6578/2023 (KLR-RES),
filed by the appellants herein.
5. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before
the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.
6. The petitioners had moved an application in Form
No.53 seeking regularization of their unauthorized
occupation in Survey No.1 of Muddenahalli Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk.
7. The decision in respect of the said application was
required to be taken by the concerned Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order
dated 28.09.2022 had rejected the application of the
petitioners for regularization of the land in Sy.No.1 of
Muddenahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North
(Additional) Taluk. The ground for rejection of the
application of the petitioners was the distance between the
periphery of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for
NC: 2026:KHC:10018-DB
HC-KAR
short 'the BBMP') and the land in question was less than
18 kms.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition, the writ
Court vide interim order dated 26.09.2023 directed the
Chief Commissioner, BBMP, to ascertain the distance of
the land having regard to the limits of Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike as on 29.07.1991 i.e., the date of the
application filed by the petitioners in Form No.53 and
submit a report to the Court.
9. In compliance of the said direction issued by the writ
Court vide order dated 26.09.2023, the report dated
23.11.2023 was submitted, which would mention the
distance between the land in question and the boundary of
the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as existed on
29.07.1991 is 11.5 kms.
10. Considering the fact that the land in question is
situated within the prohibited distance for regularization,
the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition. We see no
NC: 2026:KHC:10018-DB
HC-KAR
reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of
the learned Single Judge, which is based on the facts that
the land in question is situated within the prohibited
distance of less than 18 kms and therefore, we find no
merit and substance in this appeal, which is why we
dismiss this appeal.
11. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal interim
applications, if any do not survive for consideration, hence
disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
NG
CT:SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
