Sri Sanne Gowda v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC:11645( WP(No.(37923(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(25 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R(DEVDAS( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(37923(OF(2025((KLR-LG)( ( BETWEEN:(( ( , SRI.,SANNE,GOWDA, AGED,ABOUT,77,YEARS,, S/O,LATE,THIMME,GOWDA,,, R/O.,NO.664,,BESTARABEEDI,,, KONANUR,,ARAKALAGUD,TALUK,,, HASSAN-573,130., …PETITIONER, , (BY,SRI.,K.C.,SHANTAKUMAR,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE,,, REP.,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,, Digitally signedtiby M.S.,BUILDINGS,,, LAKSHMI0T AMBEDKAR,VEEDI,,, Location: High0Court BENGALURU-560,001., of0Karnataka ,

2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, HASSAN,DISTRICT,,, HASSAN-573,201., ,

3., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHPURA,SUB-DIVISION,,, HASSAN-573,142,,, HASSAN,DISTRICT., ,

4., THE,LAND,GRANT,COMMITTEE, ARAKALGUDU,TALUK,,,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶5THE TAHSILDAR ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER/S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents.

¶2The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation filed in Form No.50 in the year 1992 seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation of 1 acre 20 guntas out of total extent of 3 acres 24 guntas of land in Survey No.75 of Lakkanahalli Village, Konanur Hobli, Arakalgudu Taluk, Hassan District, has not been

considered till date. Therefore, the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to consider the said application.

¶3Having regard to the contentions raised in the writ petition and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.5-Tahsildar was duty bound to place the application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.4, 'Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation' and the Committee was also duty bound to consider the application and pass necessary orders. That exercise not having been taken by the respondent authorities, the respondents cannot evict the petitioner without consideration of the application of the petitioner.

¶4Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Arakalagudu Taluk, to verify from the records as to whether such an application filed by the petitioner in the year 1992, is pending consideration. If it is found that such an application was indeed filed by the petitioner and

the application is yet to be considered, the respondent-Tahsildar is directed to place before respondent No.4-Committee, the application along with his recommendation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent No.4-Committee shall consider the application and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months thereafter. Ordered accordingly.

¶5Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31