Rudramma @ Shivarudramma vs State of Karnataka and The Tahasildar

H. Billappa, J.—The learned AGA is directed to take notice for the respondents 1 and 2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to place the petitioner''s application dated 9.12.1998 before the regularization Committee for consideration.

The petitioner claims that she is cultivating 25 guntas of land lying in between Sy. Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 117 situated at Herohalli � Mayasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk since long time. The petitioner has filed application on 9.12.1998 in Form No. 53 for regularization of unauthorised cultivation. It is stated, the Taluk Surveyor has submitted a sketch and report stating that the petitioner is in possession of 20 guntas of land and the land in question is situated in between Sy. Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 117. The second respondent has not placed the application before the regularisation Committee for consideration. In the meanwhile, criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner''s sons in C.C. No. 1041/2007. It has ended in acquittal on 29.3.2010. The application of the petitioner has not been considered. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has filed Form No. 53 for regularization of unauthorized cultivation. It has not been considered. Therefore, the second respondent may be directed to place the application before the regularisation Committee for consideration.

The learned AGA submitted that the second respondent may be directed to take action in accordance with law. The petitioner has filed Form No. 53 for regularization of unauthorised cultivation of 25 guntas of land lying in between Sy. Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 117 situated at Herohalli-Mayasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The surveyor''s report shows that the petitioner is in possession of 20 guntas of land lying in between Sy. Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 117. The application of the petitioner has not been considered. The second respondent being the concerned authority ought to have placed the application before the regularisation Committee for consideration. It has not been done. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the second respondent to place the application of the petitioner in Form No. 53 before the regularisation Committee for consideration.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to place the application of the petitioner dated 9.12.1998 filed in Form No. 53 vide Annexure-A before the regularisation Committee for consideration within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the regularisation Committee shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within three months from the date of its constitution.