M. Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3276 OF 2026 (KLR-LG)

BETWEEN:

M. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O. MUNISWAMY, HULLAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560083. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M K., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶2THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSTITUTE A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 17.01.2019 ANNEXURE A

Page No.1 is re-typed and replaced vide Court order dated 19.02.2026 by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND REMINED APPLICATION DATED 02.06.2022 ANNEXURE B AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

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 High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for all the respondents.

¶2The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed in Form No.57 seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation of lands bearing Survey No.173 measuring 1 acre of Hullahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, has not been considered till date. In pursuance to the inaction of the respondent No.2-Tahsildar, the petitioner had submitted representation to him, found at Annexure-A to consider their applications in Form No.57. The same has also not been considered by the respondent-Tahsildar. Therefore, the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to consider the representation given by the petitioner and Page No.2 is re-typed and replaced vide Court order dated 19.02.2026

consider the said application of the petitioner in Form No.

57.

¶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.2-Tahsildar was duty bound to place the applications filed by the petitioners before the 'Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation' and the Committee was also duty bound to consider the applications and pass necessary orders.

¶4Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal, to verify from the records as to whether such application filed by the petitioner, is pending consideration. If it is found that such application was indeed filed by the petitioner and the application is yet to be considered, the respondent-Tahsildar is directed to place before the 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, the 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 High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

KLY CT: JL