G. Venkatappa vs State of Karnataka Revenue Department and Others

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Petitioner claims to be the owner in unauthorized occupation of Sy. No. 44/3 in Chokkahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

It is the version of the petitioner that an extent of 22 guntas of land adjacent of his land and also adjacent to Sy.No. 44 of this village has been encroached upon by the petitioner and the petitioner has been in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of this extent of 22 guntas of karab land.

It appears the petitioner had filed an application for regularization of such unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the land; that certain developments had taken place, in this regard survey report and a report of the revenue inspector has also been submitted but the authorities having not considered the request of the petitioner favourably, the present writ petition is filed seeking for issue of directions to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner.

Submission of Sri Suresh S. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that when the petitioner is in occupation and cultivation of this extent of land and the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Act and Rules enable regularization of such unauthorised occupation and when the petitioner has made an application before the concerned authorities and that has been favourably reported by the revenue authorities, it is incumbent upon the committee set up for regularization of unauthorized occupation to consider the application and pass orders and the committee having not taken action on the application of the petitioner, the aggrieved petitioner therefore, seeks for issue of a writ of mandamus.

It transpires that the land encroached upon by the petitioner is a land adjacent to the road and described as a Karab land. It is not known as to what extent is the width of the actual road and if there is such karab land adjacent to the road and if such karab land is maintained due to necessity and whether it is still desirable to retain the land as a buffer between the road and the agricultural land which the petitioner owns.

In such matters it is not necessary for this Court to direct the authorities to compel them to consider even such application nor can any one can claim a right for regularization of unauthorized occupation in respect of karab land by the side of a road or if has even encroached upon the road itself. No one has any rights for such claims.

No need to issue a writ of mandamus in such matters. Writ petition is dismissed.