1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

WRIT PETITION Nos.3658 - 3659 OF 2015 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN :

1. Sri A P Krishnappa,
S/o late Sri Kogilu Muttappa,
Aged about 61 years,
Agriculturist,
R/at Navaratna Agrahara,
Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District – 560 061.

2. Sri Muniraju,
S/o late Kogilu Muttappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Agriculturist,
R/at Navaratna Agrahara,
Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District – 560 061. ... Petitioners

(By Sri Chithappa, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
M S Building,
Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Deputy Commissioner,

Bangalore Urban District,
Kandaya Bhavan,
 2

K G Road,
Bangalore – 560 009.

3. The Assistant Commissioner,

Bangalore North Sub-Division,
Kandaya Bhavan,
K G Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

4. The Tahsildar,
Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk,
Yelahanka New town,
Bangalore Urban District – 560 064. …Respondents

(By Sri T L Kirankumar, AGA)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsements
dated 12.12.2014 vide Annexure – A and B issued by R4 and
direct the respondents to issue saguvali chits in respect of the
schedule property in compliance with order dated 24.9.1994
passed by Bhagar Hukkum Cultivation Regularization Committee
and etc.

These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing in

‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners have called into question two identical

endorsements both, dated 12.12.2014 (Annexures-A and B)

issued by the Tahsildar stating that there is no scope for

considering the petitioners’ applications for regularization of their

unauthorized occupation of the land in question, as they fall

within 18 kilometers from BBMP limits.

 3

2. Sri Chithappa, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners submitted Form No.50 application

for the regularization of their unauthorized occupation in 1991

and that the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized

Occupation of Land, Bangalore North (Additional) had resolved in

its meeting held on 24.9.1994 (Annexure-E) to regularize their

unauthorized occupation.

3. Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, the learned Additional

Government Advocate submits that as the land in question falls

within the forbidden radius, the petitioners’ unauthorized

occupation cannot be regularized.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel have received

my thoughtful consideration. The Tahsildar cannot sit in

judgment over the decisions of the Committee for the

regularization of unauthorized occupation. He is obliged to

operationalise the Committee’s resolution. The provisions

contained in Rule 108-D(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Rules, 1966 read as follows:

“108-D. Procedure of the Committee. –

……………
 4

(3) On such recommendations, the Tahsildar, who

shall be the Secretary of the Committee or the
Additional Committee, as the case may be, shall,
issue an order of grant and issue certificate of grant
or saguvali chit in Form VII specified under the
Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, or dismiss the
application, as the case may be.”

5. Further, Section 94-A (6)(a) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 also makes it incumbent upon the Tahsildar

to issue the order of grant on the recommendations of the said

Committee. The provisions contained therein read as follows:

“94-A. Regularisation of certain cases of

unauthorized occupation by constituting
Committee etc. –
…………
(6) Not withstanding anything contained in the
preceding Sub Section. –
(a) The Tahsildar concerned shall issue the order
of grant of land, on the recommendations of the
Committee or additional Committee as the case may
be, if any and issue the Saguvali Chit. The amount
payable, if any, shall be paid in three equal
instalments of which the first one shall be paid
before the expiry of a period of thirty days from the
date of communication of the order of grant and the
 5

remaining two within such period as may be

prescribed”

6. The perusal of the afore-extracted provisions clearly

indicate that the Tahsildar has no discretion or option in the

matter. If the Committee has passed the resolution for

regularizing the unauthorized occupation in violation of any Rule,

the remedy open to the Tahsildar is to file an appeal before the

Assistant Commissioner. But in any case, and under any

circumstances, he cannot sit in judgment over the resolutions of

the Committee of which he himself is the Member Secretary.

There is no provision either in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act

or Land Revenue Rules giving him the power to withhold any

resolution passed by the Committee.

7. It is also profitable to refer to this Court’s decision in

the case of RAMA NAIK v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1521, wherein it is

held that issuance of the saguvali chit is only incidental to the

granting of the land.

8. The next question that falls for my consideration is

whether the application for the regularization of unauthorised

 6

occupation has to be examined with reference to the rules which

were prevailing at that time or as per the subsequent

amendment to law ?

9. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every

statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by

necessary implication is made to have retrospective application.

Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show that the

intention of the legislature is to affect the existence of rights, it

is deemed to be prospective only. In the absence of anything in

the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation

the amendment can not take away or impair a vested right

acquired under existing law or attach a new disability. In the

instant case, admittedly, the application for the regularizaion of

unauthorized occupation was made in 1991. In 1991 there was

no prohibition in granting the land or in regularizing the

unauthorized occupation within 18 kms. from the limits of the

B.B.M.P. This prohibition is introduced subsequent to the filing

of the application for the regularization of unauthorized

occupation.
 7

10. It is also to be noticed that when the petitioners made

the application, the applicable local body in existence was

Bangalore City Corporation. Subsequently, it was reorganized.

The territory of the said local body was enlarged by adding a

number of villages and by creating the B.B.M.P. The subsequent

reorganization of the local body cannot militate against the claim

of the petitioners for the regularization of unauthorized

occupation.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I allow these petitions by

directing the Tahsildar to issue the grant-order and the saguvali

chit on such terms as are permissible in law. This shall be done

within an outer limit of four months from the date of the

production of the certified copy of today’s order. However, it is

also made clear that if the resolution passed by the Committee is

in violation of any law, it shall be open to the Tahasildar to

challenge the same by way of an appeal before the appellate

authority. If the Tahsildar files one such appeal it shall also be

open to the petitioners to resist the same by taking such

defences as are permissible in law.

 8

12. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order

as to costs.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Cm/MD