[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Bhadrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
WA No. 233 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
BHADRAPPA
S/O KEMPAHONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O OTHIGATTA SOGANE VILLAGE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA 577202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PATIL DAYANAND SUBRAYA GOUDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
RUPA V BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: MS BUILDING
HIGH BANGALORE 560001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION
SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
WA No. 233 of 2023
HC-KAR
5. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1ST FLOOR, ARAVIND BHAVAN
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
OPPOSITE TO RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
BENGALURU 560001.
6. SMT. THOPAMMA
W/O KALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O OTHIGATTA, SOGANE VILLAGE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.
7. SRI RAMAPPA
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O OTHIGATTA, SOGANE VILLAGE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R6 & R7-SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 30/03/2022 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5466/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 10.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
WA No. 233 of 2023
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of
the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order
dated 30.03.2022 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 12.05.1997, 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 dated 24.06.2019 was issued to one
Sri.Mariyappa, the appellant inquired and found that his
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
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 dated
07.11.2020. 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 06.07.1988. 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 Others1 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
WP.No.19474-19479/2016 dated 01.07.2016
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
contended that the learned Single Judge in the case of
Sri.B.R.Balakrishna and Others v. State of Karnataka2
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 12.05.1997 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
WP.No.18208/2021 dated 29.03.2022
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
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 dated 19.07.2007, 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.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the
learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State, the leaned
counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and perused the
material available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.
5. The case of the appellant is that he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.120 of
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
Sogane Village, Nidege Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and District
for several decades. The appellant filed an application
seeking regularization of his occupation on the ground that
he has been in possession and cultivation of the land for
many years. The regularization committee considered the
applications of the appellant and the other occupants and
found that the application of the appellant is eligible as per
the proceedings dated 18.12.1992 and ordered to issue Form
No.52. It is averred that the appellant deposited the required
fee as per the fee receipts produced at Annexures-D1 to D3.
It is further averred that though the payment of required fee
was paid, the grant certificate was not issued, hence, the
appellant and others filed writ petition in WP.No.35590-
35617/2000. The writ petition came to be disposed of on
13.11.2000 with a direction to the Secretary of the
committee to place the applications of the appellant and
others before the committee to dispose of the applications
within a period of six months. Thereafter, further
proceedings were conducted before the committee on
various dates. Ultimately, the application of the appellant
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
came to be rejected on 12.05.1997 as is evident from
Annexure-R2 appended to the statement of objections filed
by the State Government. There is no material placed on
record by the government to indicate that the order of the
committee dated 12.05.1997 was communicated to the
appellant. The appellant came to know about the rejection of
the application by virtue of an endorsement dated
24.06.2019 produced at Annexure-L. Though the said
endorsement is addressed to Sri.Mariyappa and
Sri.Ramappa, in the said endorsement a reference is made
with regard to the decision of the committee dated
12.05.1997. The records further indicate that the appellant
assailed the decision of the committee before respondent
No.3-Assistant Commissioner. The respondent No.3-
Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal on 07.11.2020
as is evident from Annexure-Q. The perusal of the order
indicates that the rejection was solely on the ground that the
land in question falls within 5kms of the Shivamogga City
Municipal Corporation. The order of the respondent No.3-
Assistant Commissioner was assailed in the writ proceedings.
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
6. The orders of the committee for regularization
and the appellate authority are not on merits. The rejection
of the application of the appellant is solely on the technical
ground that the land claimed by the appellant is in
contravention of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') as it falls within 5kms of the
City Municipal limits. This Court in the case of Mahadeva
and Others referred supra has held that the authority is
required to take note of the law prevailing as on the date of
filing of the application and the provisions of Section 94A of
the Act has prospective application. In view of the said
finding and taking note of the fact that the application is
claimed to have been filed on 06.07.1988, the authorities are
required to consider the law prevailing on the date of filing of
an application and not the later events.
7. It is noticed that there was a delay in filing the
appeal by the appellant before respondent No.3, however,
the same has been explained stating that he had no
knowledge with regard to the rejection of the application by
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
the regularization committee and only on 24.06.2019, he
came to know about the rejection of the application and
thereafter, the appeal was preferred before respondent No.3.
The said justification is required to be accepted in the
absence of any contrary material placed by the respondents.
Insofar as the contention of the learned AGA and the learned
counsel for KIADB that the appellant has received the
amount pursuant to the government order dated 19.07.2007
and he is are not entitled to seek for regularization has no
merit. The government order produced at Annexure-R3 along
with the objections does not indicate that the right to seek
regularization by the unauthorized occupants cannot be
enforced, it refers only with regard to the payment of
compensation for relocation of small and marginal farmers.
The said compensation is only required to be considered as
an ex-gratia of amount for delivery of possession. The right
to seek regularization is substantive right available under the
provisions of the Act which cannot be taken away by way of
government order, hence, there is no merit in the contention
advanced by the respondents. It is made clear that this
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
entitlement for regularization of the land in favour of the
appellant. It is also noticed that now the land is acquired by
the State. If the authority comes to conclusion that the
appellant is entitled for regularization of land in his favour,
the authority shall issue necessary order and based on such
order, the appellant is entitled to seek compensation from
the respondent authorities.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal
is allowed, impugned order of the learned Single Judge
dated 30.03.2022 in WP.No.5466/2021 is set aside.
Consequently writ petition is allowed.
Order dated 07.11.2020 passed by respondent No.3
and the order dated 12.05.1997 of the committee for
regularization are hereby set aside. Writ of mandamus is
issued to respondent No.4 to place the application of the
appellant before the committee for regularization and the
committee shall take decision on merits and in accordance
with law, keeping in mind the observations of this Court. The
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10544-DB
HC-KAR
decision shall be taken within a period of 6 months from the
date of receipt of copy of the order.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
