Smt. Gangamma vs The State of Karnataka and The Tahsildar

H. Billappa, J.—The learned counsel AGA is directed to take notice for the respondents 1 and 2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner''s husband vide Annexure-A.

The petitioner claims that her husband Linganna was cultivating 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 44 of Kannamangala village. The petitioner''s husband has filed form No. 50 as per annexure ''A'' seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation. The revenue inspector has prepared the list of Anubhavdars and sketch as per annexure E and E1. The name of the petitioner''s husband is at Sl. No. 1.. It shows that the petitioner''s husband is in possession of 1 acre of land. The name of the petitioner''s husband is entered in the RTC also. The respondent No. 2 has not considered the application of the petitioner''s husband. Therefore, this writ petition.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application of the petitioner''s husband for regularization of unauthorized cultivation has not been considered and therefore, the respondent No. 2 may be directed to consider the application of the petitioner''s husband and place it before the regularization committee for consideration.

The learned AGA submitted that respondent No. 2 may be directed to take action in accordance with law. The petitioner claims that her husband was cultivating 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 44 of Kannamangala Village. He has filed form No. 50 as per Annexure-A seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation. The RTC entries show the name of petitioner''s husband from 1984-1985 onwards. The Revenue Inspector has prepared list of Anubhavdars and sketch as per Annexure-E and E1. It shows that the petitioner''s husband is in possession of 1 acre of land. The respondent No. 2 being the concerned authority ought to have considered the application of the petitioner''s husband and placed it before the regularization committee for consideration. But has failed to do so. Therefore, it is necessary to direct respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner and place it before the regularization committee.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner''s husband vide Annexure-A and place it before the regularization committee for consideration soon after it is constituted. Thereafter, the regularization committee shall consider the application of the petitioner''s husband vide Annexure ''A'' in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within three months.