When Regularisation Is Approved, the Tahsildar Must Issue the Saguvali Chit.

The petitioners claimed unauthorised occupation and cultivation of land in Sy. No. 111, Harobenahalli Village, Shivamogga Taluk, and had applied in Form 53 for regularisation

Their applications were rejected, but on appeal the Assistant Commissioner remitted the matter for verification of whether the land was within five kilometres of Shivamogga city and for further consideration by the regularisation Committee.

The Committee resolved that the petitioners’ cases should be considered after obtaining a report, and reports from revenue officials stated that the petitioners had cultivated the land for more than 30 years.

The petitioners sought a direction to collect the prescribed fees or fine and issue saguvali chits, relying on a Division Bench decision concerning the same survey number.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to collect the prescribed fees or fine and issue saguvali chits for the land claimed by them

Whether the Committee’s resolution and the Division Bench decision concerning the same survey number warranted action on the petitioners’ claims under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966

Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, read with Rule 108-D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, governs the Committee’s role in recommending grants to unauthorised occupants.

Under Rule 108-D(3), the Committee may recommend grant, and the Tahsildar, as its Secretary, must issue the grant order and saguvali chit on the basis of that recommendation.

The Court applied the Division Bench ruling in W.A. Nos. 3067–3068 of 2019 and connected appeals, decided on 18 September 2019, which directed the Tahsildar to act in accordance with the Committee’s recommendation under Rule 108-D(3).

The Court noted that the petitioners’ applications had been remitted for further consideration, that the Committee had resolved to consider their claims after obtaining a report, and that revenue reports recorded more than 30 years of cultivation.

It also found the Division Bench ruling relevant because it concerned the same survey number and had directed grant certificates to be issued in accordance with the Committee’s recommendation.

Applying Rule 108-D(3) and that precedent, the Court held that the petitioners’ claims warranted the relief sought.

The Court issued a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to collect the prescribed fees or fine within two months of receipt of the certified order and thereafter issue saguvali chits for the subject land as claimed by the petitioners, in light of the Division Bench decision.

The petitioners’ interlocutory application was also allowed.