Man’s 2-Acre Government-Land Claim Goes to Committee for Fresh Decision After Conflicting Occupation Records: Karnataka HC

The petitioner, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste and claimed to be landless, sought regularisation of his unauthorised occupation and cultivation of two acres in Sy. No. 512, Kembavi village, allegedly since 1993.

After being directed to apply in Form Nos. 50 and 53, he submitted an application acknowledged by the authorities in 2018.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the land fell within a four-kilometre radius.

The petitioner challenged the Tahsildar’s endorsement and sought regularisation.

The petitioner’s checklist indicated occupation and cultivation, while the State’s checklist stated that no application had been filed and that the petitioner was not cultivating the land.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision, rule, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the procedural principle that, where the material records concerning an application and the applicant’s eligibility are conflicting, the matter should be considered by the competent Committee on the merits and in accordance with law, rather than determined on an unresolved factual discrepancy.

The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner’s conclusion that the land was within the prohibited four-kilometre radius conflicted with the checklist prepared by the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector, which recorded the petitioner’s occupation of the land.

The State’s checklist also contradicted the petitioner’s documents as to whether an application had been filed and whether the land was being cultivated.

Given these inconsistencies, the Court did not determine that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation; it instead directed that his application be placed before the competent Committee for a lawful decision.

The Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings dated 10 May 2022 were set aside insofar as they concerned the petitioner, and the Tahsildar was directed to place the petitioner’s regularisation application before the Committee, which must decide it in accordance with law.

The Court did not grant the land to the petitioner.

The pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.