Authorities Cannot Discriminate in Regularizing Unauthorized Occupation of Similarly Situated Lands.

The petitioner claimed unauthorised cultivation of land at Megalapura Village, including Sy. No. 15 measuring 30 guntas, and sought regularisation by an application in Form No. 57.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the land was within 10 kilometres of Mysore City Corporation limits.

The petitioner relied on a PWD letter stating that Megalapura was 17 kilometres from Mysore and on a committee resolution granting 1.04 acres in Sy. No. 18 of the same village to a neighbouring landholder.

He challenged the endorsement under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s regularisation claim on the ground that the land was within 10 kilometres of Mysore City Corporation limits should be set aside in light of the PWD letter.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to non-discriminatory consideration in view of the grant made to a neighbouring landholder in the same village.

The Court applied the principle that similarly situated persons should not be treated differently without justification, relying on the neighbouring landholder’s grant as a basis for finding discriminatory treatment.

The judgment cites no specific statute, regulation, or precedent as the basis for that principle.

The Court found that the PWD letter stated that Megalapura was more than 17 kilometres from Mysore, contradicting the endorsement’s assertion that the land was within 10 kilometres of the city limits.

It also noted that the committee had granted land in Sy. No. 18 of the same village to a neighbouring landholder, and that a saguvali chit and RTC had followed.

In light of that grant and the petitioner’s claim of cultivation for more than four decades, the Court held that the respondents could not discriminate in considering his claim.

It directed the Tahsildar to enter the petitioner’s name in the RTC for the land in question within two months of receiving the order, and directed the committee to pass appropriate orders in the petitioner’s favour consistent with its resolution dated 29 January 2018.