Regularisation applications must be decided under the rules prevailing on the filing date.

The petitioner filed Form No. 53 on 23 November 1992, seeking regularisation of his unauthorised occupation of 20 guntas in Survey No. 100, Bellikere Village.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court had directed the authorities to consider his application.

The District Commissioner subsequently rejected the claim on the ground that the land was within the prescribed distance of the BBMP limits, and issued a consequential endorsement.

The petitioner challenged both decisions, contending that the authorities had to assess his application under the law prevailing when it was filed.

Whether the petitioner’s Form No. 53 had to be considered under the law in force on the date it was filed, rather than by reference to the later circular relied on by the authorities.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the stated BBMP-distance ground was legally sustainable, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for regularisation.

The Court held that an application for regularisation must be considered under the rules prevailing on the date the application was filed.

It relied on Sri R. Maregowda and Others v. Tahsildar, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, W.P. No. 20722/2021, decided 24 January 2022, for that principle.

It also referred to State of Karnataka v. Holeyappa and Others, ILR 2007 KAR 259, which recognised the statutory framework for regularisation of unauthorised occupation under Sections 94-A, 94-B and 94-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and discussed the relationship between regularisation, livelihood and constitutional protections.

The petitioner’s application dated 23 November 1992 predated the circular of 22 December 2010 invoked by the State. Applying the rule in Maregowda, the Court concluded that the later circular could not govern the application.

It also noted that land in neighbouring D. Hosahalli Village had been regularised and held that the reasons given for rejecting the petitioner’s claim were contrary to the applicable law and the cited precedents.

It directed Respondents 2 and 3 to regularise the land in favour of the petitioner by accepting Form No. 53 within two months of receiving the order.