Sri. Puttaswamaiah v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3556 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. PUTTASWAMAIAH S/O LATE SAMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODIYALA KARENAHALLI RAMANAGARA, TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GEETHA A., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001

¶2THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING LND/CR/427/2025 DATED 22/01/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE WRIT PETITION, AND BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/01/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. SAGUVALI CHIT MAY BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

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 takes notice for both the respondents.

¶2Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed Form No.53 in the year 1998 for regularization of unauthorized occupation. The same was considered by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has issued impugned endorsement dated

22.01.2026 at Annexure–G, rejecting the application on the ground that the lands in question are within the prohibited distance of 18 kms. from the boundary of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike (BBMP).

¶3The learned Counsel would further submit that the application was filed in the year 1998 and at that point

of time the land in question was not within the prohibited distance of 18 kms., from the boundary of the BBMP.

¶4Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court has held in several such cases, including the case of Sri.Ravikumar and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.237/2022 dated 17.01.2024, has laid down the law as to the manner in which the distance has to be measured. The learned counsel prays for similar orders.

¶5This Court has held, having regard to the earlier decisions in the case of Sri.Ravikumar and Another (supra), as follows: "5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and Revenue Authorities and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the law as to the consideration of the distance having regard to the date of the application has been settled by this Court. Therefore, all that is required to be done now at the hands of the respondent - Tahsildar is to find out the distance between the land in question and the boundary of Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike as on the date of the application. Learned counsel had submitted during the course of the arguments that it appears that the boundaries of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike were extended in the year 2007 by a notification. If that is the truth, then the Tahsildar is required to re-ascertain regarding the distance between the land in question and boundary of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as it was prior to 2007, if such a notification was issued and the boundaries of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike were extended in the year 2007. At any rate in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri.Ashwathappa and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.2411/2022 dated 18.02.2022, the distance has to be measured as per the geographical jurisdiction of local body as it was on the date of the application filed by the petitioner.

¶6For that purpose, the writ petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and all other earlier orders passed by the Tahsildar. The matter stands remanded to the Tahsildar, Hosakote with a specific direction that he shall decide as to what was the distance between the land in question and the boundary of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as it was as on the date of application i.e., in the year 1998. If it is clear that the land in question was not within the prohibited distance having regard to the boundaries of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, then the Tahsildar shall immediately proceed to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

¶6Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned endorsement dated 22.01.2026 at Annexure-G issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, with a specific direction that he shall decide as to what was the distance between the land in question and the boundary of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

(BMP) as it was as on the date of applications filed in the year 1998. If it is clear that the lands in question were not within the prohibited distance having regard to the boundaries of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

(BMP), then the Tahsildar shall place the report and applications filed by the petitioner in Form No.53 before Committee, Committee shall consider applications of the petitioner and proceed to pass necessary orders in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21