MAHADEV S/O. SHIVAPPA CHABBI, vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
R

WRIT PETITION NO. 103959 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 105986 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

IN WP NO. 103959/2023
BETWEEN:

DAVALSAB MUKTUMSAB BALAGANUR
AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SECTOR NO.36, NANDA GALLI,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT 587103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT 587103.

2. THE REHABILITATION OFFICER,
BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT 587103.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENTS DATED 04.06.2021,
05.08.2021 AND 28.09.2021 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT
ANNEXUERE-D BEARING NO , AND
¥ÀAiÀÄÄ C ¨Á ¥À D ¥Áæ ¹ Dgï 2021-22/459

Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench

ANNEXURE-G BEARING NO , AND AT
¥ÀÄ C ¨Á ¥À D ¥Áæ ¹ Dgï 2021-22/1498
ANNEXURE-H BEARING NO ,
¥Àæ C.¨Á. ¥À. C ¥Áæ Dgï. 2021-22/2253
RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

IN WP NO. 105986/2025

BETWEEN:
MAHADEV S/O. SHIVAPPA CHABBI,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER MAHESH M. KATAGERI,
R/O. KFMS, DHAWALGIMATH,
SECTOR NO.62, PLOT NO.95/S,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT-587103.

2. THE REHABILITATION OFFICER,
BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT-587103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE RESOLUTION DATED 02-
03-2019 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 ONLY INSOFAR AS THE
ALLOTMENT OF ‘B’ CATEGORY SITE TO THE PETITIONER
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

ORAL ORDER

1. Brief facts of the case in W.P.No.103959/2023 are that:

1.1 Petitioner was the owner of a site bearing CTS No.9(BTDA)
No.11) in Ward No.5 of Bagalakote Town which was
acquired by respondent authority for upper Krishna project
during the year 2007-08. That in terms of Bagalkot Town
Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1993
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1993), each displaced
family is entitled for allotment of a free site up to 72
Sq.Mtrs. under ‘A’ category. If such person opts for site in
another category he is required to pay the difference of
cost of the site over and above said 72 Sq. Mtrs.

1.2 Petitioner had requested for allotment of ‘E’ category site
by filing an application dated 19.08.2020, which was
declined. Petitioner had filed a writ petition
W.P.No.148070/2020 which was disposed of 14.03.2021
directing the respondent authority to consider the said
application. Pursuant to the said order petitioner submitted
another representation on 20.04.2021. Respondent No.2
has issued an endorsement dated 04.06.2021 rejecting the
request on the premise the petitioner being an

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

unauthorized occupant. On 09.06.2021 petitioner made a
detailed representation contending that he had been
residing for over 60 years in the property which was
acquired as such he cannot be terms as unauthorized
occupant was not entitled for such allotment. However, on
05.08.2021 respondent No.2 issued an endorsement
stating that since petitioner was already allotted ‘B’
category site he is not entitled for allotment of site in ‘E”
category. This was followed by similar endorsement dated
28.09.2021. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the said
endorsement, the petitioner has filed the present petition
seeking following reliefs:
“I. Issue writ of certiorari quashing the endorsements
dated 04.06.2021, 05.08.2021 and 28.09.2021 Which are
produced at Annexure -D bearing of No
¥ÀAiÀÄÄ C ¨Á ¥À D ¥Áæ ¹
, And Annexure-G bearing No
Dgï 2021-22/459 ¥ÀÄ C ¨Á ¥À D ¥Áæ
¹ Dgï 2021-22/1498 , and at Annexure-H bearing No ¥Àæ C.¨Á. ¥À. C
, respectively issued by the respondent
¥Áæ Dgï. 2021-22/2253
No.2.

II. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent
No. to allot E category site or equal square meter site to the
petitioner and 2 A category site to his major children by
considering the representation stated in the said order and
as per detailed representation 19.08.2020 in terms of site
allotment Rules 1993(Rule 4(1) (2) and (3), in the interest
of justice and equity.

III. Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper under the facts and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and
equity.”

2. Brief facts of the case in W.P.No.105986/2025 are that:
2.1 That the petitioner herein was owner of site bearing CTS
No.9 situated in Ward No.11 Bagalkote Town which was
acquired for Upper Krishna Project in the year 2007-08 in
terms of Rules 1993. BTDA by resolution dated
02.03.2019, allotted ‘B’ category site to the petitioner and
issued Hakkupatra on 08.04.2022. Petitioner submitted an
application dated 07.04.2025 for allotment of ‘E’ category
site, which has not been considered.
2.2 Being aggrieved by the resolution dated 02.03.2019 only
insofar as allotment of ‘B’ category site and issuance of
Hakkupatra dated 08.04.2022 and also non-consideration
of his representation dated 07.04.2025, the petitioner
approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution
dated 02.03.2019 by Respondent No-1 only insofar as the
allotment of 'B' category site to the petitioner; Produced at
Annexure-C.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Hakkupatra
No.5236 issued on 08.04.2022 issued by Respondent No 1,
2 which are produced at Annexure-D.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

nd
c. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2
respondent to consider the representation dated
07.04.2025 which is produced at Annexure-B and

d. Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the
contents of the impugned endorsements submits that the
respondent-Authority has misconceived the provisions of
Rules 1993, whereby while wrongly considering the
petitioners to be unauthorised occupants it has declared
that they are not entitled for allotment of ‘E’ category
sites. She refers to the definition of term ‘displaced
person’, as defined under Rule 2(g) of the Rules 1993 to
contend that the said definition does not provide any
differentiation or distinction between owner, occupier,
tenant etc.

4. She then refers to Rules 3 and 4 of Rules 1993 to point out
that if a displaced person opts ‘A’ category site, he is not
required to pay any costs thereof. However, if he opts for
allotment of any other category of site, namely ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’,

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

‘E’, he is required to pay the costs of site as specified
thereunder.

5. Referring to sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of Rules 1993, she
insists all that said clause contemplates is allotment of site
on priority and does not distinguish or discriminate
between owner, occupier or tenant or unauthorised
occupant. Thus, she submits that the impugned
endorsements issued by the respondent-Authority run
contrary to the provisions of Rules 1993.

6. She refers to an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 14.08.2024 in W.P.No.100350/2024
connected with W.P.No.102484/2024 to contend that in
the said writ petition request of petitioner who was a
tenant for change of category of site has been considered
and relief has been granted directing the Authorities to
consider the request for change of allotment of site. She
also refers to Government Proceedings dated 22.09.1998
and Annexure-A enclosed to the said proceedings to
contend that the said Annexure-A provides for manner of
allotment of sites ward wise to the corresponding sectors.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

7. Thus, referring to the above material she submits that the
impugned endorsements attempting to distinguish
between owner, occupier/unauthorized occupier or the
tenant, as the case may be, is unjustified and seeks for
allowing of the petitions.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Authorities, placing reliance on the explanation provided to
Rule 4 and reading the same along with sub-Rule (4)
thereof vehemently submits that the conjoint reading of
the explanation and the sub-Rule makes it clear that while
considering the application for allotment of sites or change
of category, as the case may be, priority is required to be
given to the owner and thereafter the tenant or occupant,
as the case may be.

9. He tried to justify the said submission by referring to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cable
Corporation of India Limited v. Additional
Commissioner of Labour and Others reported in
(2008) 7 SCC 680 , wherein at paragraph No.11 of the
said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has adverted to the
interpretation of the words ‘or’ and ‘and’. Thus, he submits

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

that the said word ‘or’ has to be read as disjunct and not
conjunct. As such, he submits ‘owners’ shall be given
priority over the ‘tenants’ or the ‘occupants’. He submits
that it is in this light the endorsements impugned in these
petitions are required to be read which does not give rise
to cause of action as sought to be made out in the instant
petitions. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petitions.

10. Heard. Perused the records.

11. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioners herein
had been allotted sites under ‘B’ category in lieu of the
acquisition of the sites which are in their occupation. The
petitioners have sought for allotment of alternate sites in
‘E’ category which are larger in size and requires payment
of difference of costs by the petitioners.

12. The questions which require consideration are:

(a) Whether the provisions of BTDA Rules 1993
differentiate between ‘owner’, ‘tenant’ and
‘occupant’ of the submergible land disabling
them from claiming allotment of site?

(b) Whether the respondent-BTDA is justified in
issuing the impugned endorsements?

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

13. Appropriate to refer to definition 2(g) of Rules 1993, which
read as under:
“2(g) "Displaced person" means and includes.-

(i) a person residing in the submergible portion of
Bagalkot Town and who will be displaced due to
submergence;

(ii) a person residing in the non-submergible
area or Bagalkot Town, whose immovable property in the
submergible portion of Bagalkot Town is acquired;

(iii) a person in occupation as a tenant (for residence,
business, trade, or other avocations) of immovable property
situated in the submergible portion of Bagalkot Town for
[not less than five years] preceding the date of issue of
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;”

14. Perusal of the aforesaid definition ‘displaced person’ does
not appear to be making any distinction between owner or
tenant or occupant. It only refers to a person who is
residing or in occupation of the submergible land could be
as an owner or as a tenant for any purpose be it residence,
business, trade or other avocations. However, it requires
such persons to be in occupation of land for at least 5
years preceding the date of issue of notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

15. This is the only criterion appears from the said definition
providing to be labeled as ‘displaced person’.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

16. Category of sites provided under Rule 3 of Rules 1993 read
as under:
“3. Category of Sites.-(1) The following categories of sites
shall be made available by the authority in the New
Bagalkot Township for allotment to the displaced persons;
migrants and other persons who are entitled for allotment
of sites under these rules, namely.--

Category

Site in meters

Area in sq.
mts.

A 8 X 9 72
B 9 X 12 108
C 12 X 18 216
D 15 X 24 360
E 18 X 27 496

(2) The total number of sites in each category shall be
determined by the authority.”

17. Rule 4 of Rules 1993 providing for allotment of sites
indicate that ‘A’ category sites shall be allotted free of cost
to each displaced persons which is free of cost.

18. Explanation to sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 defines the term
‘Displaced family’ and the proviso to said explanation reads
as under:
“Explanation. "Displaced family" in relation to a person
means such person, the wife or husband, as the case may
be of such person and the children wholly dependent on
him who, either as owner or tenant (Including Municipal
tenant) was residing in the submergible portion of Bagalkot
Town for [not less than five years] preceding the date of
issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894:

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

Provided that not more than two children (whether Male or
Female) of the head of a displaced family who had attained
majority on the date of issue of notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be deemed and
construed as separate family for the purpose of allotment of
site under these rules and such separate family for the
purpose of allotment of site shall be selected by the
displaced family failing which the Bagalkot Town
Development Authority shall select them. Such separate
family of the displaced family shall not be entitled for
allotment of site exceeding an area of 72 Square Metres or
any site of portion of a site free of cost:

Provided further that not more than two adult brothers of
the displaced family or where such adult brother is not alive
the widow of such brother who has not remarried on the
date of sanction of the site under these rules shall be
eligible for allotment of "A" category site of seventy-two sq.
mtrs. at the rate applicable to Major sons, subject to the
conditions that on the date of issue of notification under
Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1964.-

(i) the brothers of displaced family had attained the
age of eighteen years and was residing in the same house
of the displaced family;

(ii) he establishes with evidence to the effect that he
had separate kitchen and separate ration card; and

(iii) if there are more than two brothers in the displaced
family the beneficiaries among them shall be selected by
the P.D.F., failing which the Bagalkot Town Development
Authority shall select them.”

19. The term ‘displaced person’ as defined under Rule 2(g) of
Rules 1993 if juxtaposed with the term ‘displaced family’
provided in explanation as noted above gives different
context, object and purport of the rule. While ‘displaced
person’ could be one who is defined thereunder, ‘displaced

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

family’ is in the context of entitlement of number of sites
and the persons belonging to the ‘displaced family’.

20. Proviso as noted above indicate that if a ‘displaced family’
in relation to a person mean such person, wife, husband,
as the case may be, of such person and children wholly
dependent on him, who either as an owner or a tenant was
residing in the submerged portion of land.

21. Thus, ‘displaced family’ includes displaced persons as wife
and dependent children.

22. First proviso noted above further indicate that not more
than 2 children whether male or female of the head of
displaced family who attain majority are also entitled for
allotment of site. Such children of the displaced family
shall be deemed and construed as ‘separate family’ for the
purpose of allotment of site.

23. The second proviso further clarifies the limit of entitlement
of such deemed ‘separate family’ in the eventuality of
demise of any members of such deemed ‘separate family’.

24. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Rules 1993 providing for priority
to be given while allotting the site read as under:

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

“(4) (i) The allotment of sites would be on the basis of first
priority for project displaced families, second priority for
deemed separate families (as given in proviso to
Explanation to sub-clause (3) above) and third priority to
migrants and others;

(ii) Allotment of site numbers to eligible families as per the
priority given above would be done by category wise
separate draws of lots.”

25. Specific terms used in the aforesaid sub-rule (4) puts the
allottees in the order of priority. In that, ‘displaced
families’ are in the first priority, ‘deemed separate family’
in the second priority and migrant and others in the third
category. There is no differentiation or distinction between
‘displaced family of owner’ or ‘displaced family of a tenant’
for the purpose of first category of allotment. It only refers
to displaced families.

26. Settled principle of law of interpretation is Courts cannot
add, substitute or supplement what is not provided under
the provisions of the Statute particularly, when the
language of the Statute is plain and clear.

27. Sub-rule (4) as noted above, has not made any distinction
between ‘displaced family of owner’ and ‘displaced family
of a tenant’. Therefore, displaced families in the first
category in the considered view of this Court will have to

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

be read to include displaced family of owner or tenant.
Since these Rules are in the nature of beneficial legislation,
it cannot be read to deprive and deny what is not intended
under the Rules.

28. Reference to paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cable Corporation of
India Limited (supra) made by learned counsel for the
respondent-Authorities to distinguish and differentiate the
claim of priority between ‘displaced family of owner’ and
‘displaced family of tenant’, would rather advance the case
of the petitioners. Paragraph No.11 of the said judgment
reads as under:
“ 11. The word “or” is normally disjunctive and “and” is
normally conjunctive. But at times they are read as vice
versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the
legislature as disclosed from the context. As stated by
Scrutton, L.J.:
“You do sometimes read ‘or’ as ‘and’ in a statute.
But you do not do it unless you are obliged because
‘or’ does not generally mean ‘and’ and ‘and’ does not
generally mean ‘or’. And as pointed out by Lord
Halsbury the reading of ‘or’ as ‘and’ is not to be
resorted to, ‘unless some other part of the same
statute or the clear intention of it required that to be
done’. But if the literal reading of the words
produces an unintelligible or absurd result ‘and’ may
be read for ‘or’ and ‘or’ for ‘and’ even though the
result of so modifying the words is less favourable to
the subject provided that the intention of the
legislature is otherwise quite clear. Conversely if
reading of ‘and’ as ‘or’ produces grammatical

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

distortion and makes no sense of the portion
following ‘and’, ‘or’ cannot be read in place of ‘and’.
The alternatives joined by ‘or’ need not always be
mutually exclusive.”

29. The Rules extracted hereinabove do not suggest any
intention of the Legislature to read the word ‘or’ used in
the explanation to give a meaning that ‘displaced family of
owner’ be placed in a higher pedestal than the ‘displaced
family of a tenant’. Therefore, the distinction sought to be
made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Authority
that while allotting the sites ‘displaced family of owner’
shall be given priority than the ‘displaced family of a
tenant’ cannot be accepted inasmuch as there are only
three categories provided under the sub-rule and there is
no room for fourth category.

30. Having said that, adverting to the impugned
endorsements, the respondent-Authority has declined the
request of the petitioners considering them to be an
‘unauthorised occupant of the land’ which got submerged.

31. In W.P.No.103959/2023, Annexures-D, G and H are
identical, which read as under:

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

“¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ ¥ÀlÖt C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ

PÀæ.¸ÀA:¥ÀÄC:¨Á.¥À.C.¥Áæ:¹Dgï:2021-22 ¥ÀÅ£ÀgïªÀ¸Àw C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ
¨Á.¥À.C.¥Áæ.,¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ
¢£ÁAPÀ:04.06.2021
UÉ,
²æÃ zÁªÀ®¸Á§ ªÀÄPÀÄÛA¸Á§ §¼ÀUÁ£ÀÆgÀ
¸Á|| gÀhÄAqÁUÀ°è ªÀÄ¸ÀÆwÛ ºÀwÛgÀ
¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ

«µÀAiÀÄ: jmï ¦mÉÃµÀ£ï £ÀA.148070/2020 DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
E-ªÀiÁzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. CfðzÁgÀgÀ Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.04.2021
2.ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ

¸ÀA.148070/2020 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04.03.2021
*
ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌtÂ¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ
¦ÃoÀzÀ°è qÀ§Æèå¦ £ÀA.148070/2020 ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ E-ªÀiÁzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀgÀuÉ
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÃ½PÉÆArgÀÄwÛj. ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è C£ÀÄ¸ÀÆa-r C£ÀÄß
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ AiÉÆÃUÀå ¤tðAiÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ DzÉÃ±À
ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÁqÀð £ÀA.05 ©nrJ £ÀA.11
D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄ¼ÀÄUÀqÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ²æÃ ¥Àæ¨sÀÄ°AUÀ UÀÄgÀÄUÀAUÁzsÀgÀ¸Áé«Ä CªÀÅAzÀPÀgÀ
EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ°è vÁªÀÅ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ PÀlÖqÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ J¸ï.J¯ï.J.N ©nrJ
¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ EªÀgÀÄ LwÃ¥ÀÅð gÀZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ 127£ÉÃ ¨ÉÆÃqÀð
¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¤tð¬Ä¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÉPÀÖgï £ÀA.83-©-24 ¤ªÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ
ªÀiÁr ¢£ÁAPÀ 06.05.2017 gÀAzÀÄ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀgÀuÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÁgÀt ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ
¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ E-ªÀiÁzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉUÉ CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ F
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À»
¥ÀÅ£ÀgïªÀ¸Àw C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
¨Á.¥À.C.¥Áæ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ”

32. The aforesaid reasons assigned in the endorsements is not
traceable to any of the provisions of the Rule when
petitioners have already been allotted ‘B’ category site,
they cannot be deprived opportunity for allotment of

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

alternate site by creating another group of ‘unauthorized
occupant’ which is not provided under the Rules, 1993.

33. Thus, for the reasons, discussions and analysis made
above with reference to the provisions of the Rules 1993,
not providing for any differential treatment between
owner, tenant, occupant etc, the reasons assigned in the
impugned endorsements to contend that since the
petitioners are unauthorized occupants, there is no
provision in the Rules for change of allotment of category
of sites cannot be countenanced.

34. Points raised above are answered accordingly.

35. In that view of the matter, petitions are allowed .

36. Impugned endorsements at Annexures-D, G and H in
W.P.No.103959/2023 are quashed.

37. The respondent-Authorities are directed to consider the
case of the petitioners of their request for allotment of ‘E’
category site in accordance with the priority in terms of
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Rules 1993.

38. It is made clear that there is no requirement of enquiring
into whether or not the petitioners are displaced person or
member of displaced family inasmuch as admittedly they

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16684
WP No. 103959 of 2023
C/W WP No. 105986 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020088482023

have already been allotted ‘B’ category of site. Therefore,
the enquiry is only limited to the extent whether they are
entitled for change of category of site in the order of
priority noted above and not otherwise.

39. Such exercise shall be undertaken within an outer limit of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.

40. They shall also consider the representation for allotment of
sites sought on the premise of deemed/construed separate
family of major children as provided under the explanation
to Rule 4 of Rules 1993.

Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

SH
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1