Vasanth Kumar T v. Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 2524 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

¶1VASANTH KUMAR T S/O UMA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/A 42, BDA LAYOUT, JAMBUSAVARIDINNE, JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE, GOTTIGERE, BANGALORE-560076.

¶2SMT. V. UMA W/O T. VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 42, JAMBUSAVARIDINNE, GOTTIGERE, BANGALORE-560076.

¶3SELVA KUMAR V S/O T. VEERASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 42, JAMBUSAVARIDINNE, JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE, GOTTIGERE, BANGALORE – 560076.

¶4SMT. HAMSAVALLI W/O VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A 42, JAMBUSAVARIDINNE, JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE, GOTTIGERE, BANGALORE – 560076. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE)

by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:7662( WP(No.(2524(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:( (

1., DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE,URBAN,DISTRICT,,, K.G.,ROAD,,BANGALORE-560009., ,

2., THE,TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE,SOUTH,TALUK,,, BANGALORE-560009., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.V.SESHU.,,HCGP), , , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDERS, DATED.13.01.2026, BEARING, NO., 94CC(U)CR241/22-23,, NO.94CC(U)CR66/22-23,, NO., 94CC(U)CR250/22-23, AND, NO., 94CC(U)CR39/21-22, PASSED, BY,THE,2ND,RESPONDENT,AS,PER,ANNEXURE,-,A,TO,A3,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( ( , The, petitioners, are, aggrieved, of, the, impugned, notices, issued, by, the, respondent-Tahsildar, at, Annexures, A,,A1,,A2,and,A3,,invoking,Rule,108-Z,of,the,Karnataka, Land,Revenue,Rules,,1966.,,

¶2On the previous occasion, the learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to have issued the impugned notices for cancellation of the house sites.

¶3However, learned High Court Government Pleader submits on instructions that the Rule invoked is Rule 108-Z of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, which provision emanates from Chapter XIII-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. This power conferred under Rule 108-Z is pertaining to grant of land in case of construction of dwelling houses occupied on Government lands in urban areas lying within the specified limits of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and other cities.

¶4Learned High Court Government Pleader points out to Rule 108-U, where it is clearly provided that the authority for the purpose of Section 94-CC is the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Grade I, within whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

¶5Learned High Court Government Pleader further submits that it is found that the petitioners are all members of the same family and they have all filed applications seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation of lands for dwelling houses in urban areas, within the limits of BBMP, in terms of sub-clause (4) of Section 94-CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is not permissible for members of the family to file more than one application. Moreover, only those persons who had put up construction of a dwelling house prior to 1st day of January 2015 were eligible for making the application. It is now found that the petitioners had not put up any construction even at the time of the application and now photographs are produced along with the writ petition which also shows that the construction is underway.

¶6Learned High Court Government Pleader would therefore submit that the petitioners may be relegated to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar should be permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

¶7Having regard to the contentions of the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar has the authority to issue the notice and he has accordingly issued notice. The petitioners are required to participate in the proceedings/enquiry that is conducted by the Tahsildar.

¶8Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of permitting the second respondent-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

JT/- CT: JL