j.:j’ IN TN5 HIGH COURT OF WARUAPA<A AT BANGALORE DkPED II SHE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 1996 B SF0 RE THE HO’VBL5 MR,J t JTICE P.’YTHWAflfH s-sm WRIT PFrITION No.13031/1996 Between: Subbe Gowda, 5 5/0 Heeregowda, age mafor 0cc .?.griculture, na Gonibee&r, Tel. Shadravathi, List. Shinoga. ... Petitioner. (BY Sri,Ashok S Menasinkai, .Sdv.,) ?n d: 1, The State of Kajnatak, by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vjd.hana Scdha, Bang ciore. 2. The Thhsildsr, Bhadr avat hi ,:.. Taiuk. 3. The Shairman, Taluk Level Land Regular isat ion Committee, Tahajidar Office, Bhadravathj Taluk, ,,, Resoondents. (By 2ri.Kotlan Addi. GA., ** *** This :c IS filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitt ion of India praying to quash the order vide Mnex.G dt.1.4,96 by the Tahailder & etc., ..;.aran*: ::,.;: .j:4fl 2— This writ petit:on oming on for preliminary bee 1’ t*is day, the ort cad- o1’ow 4 nq be ORDER Sri 3,2, Zotjen, learned 3 overnnent Advocatc is 3irctrd to take notice to re nJonts, floug tüs ret tion isported or orehimina hearing with the consrrt of the learned counsel apoearinr for the petitioner and the Ic ncd ovarnnt Advo Ita, this o titi a taken up for firal hearlni and lisposed f, by rhis order. 3, Tha ‘crtitionert this o-ltion clatrLs to 3n on ut dnid uCOuo i i f r nrra lani masurig 36 gun t as in °urvey o,37, at Gonibeedu villaqe, 3hec1avat-t Taluk, eversince ha y ar 197 4, S c h ü fr a a ation was not consli ered, the titioinr ha accroacne5 this court hi fIlIng drit Petiton Uc,laSSS,97 in nd/t au wr t ,eti ion his our b j a order dated 4th Thre, L9Y7 di--oted theAuthorities at (i..) e3.. I to examine the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation copy of the order is marked as knnexure-P to this petition. However, inspite of the direction given by this court to examine the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his unauthorised occu 9 ttion in respect of)he ‘Vthe 2rsi respondent’ landeferred to above/by ians of his order/ ocaunication dated 1st April, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as AnnexureeG has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner ftid not file Form No.50. The said order/comunication has been called in question in this petition. S. Sri Ashok $ Menbsinkai, learned counsel for the petitioner suhnits that the order isugned is passed in utter disregard of the di rection given by this court in Order, Annexuree?, Wherein this court had directed the Authorities to enaine the case of the petitioner seeking regularisation of his ‘nc-. 1 a 4— unauthorised occuoation on the basis of the anolica ion fil irlier; ard under ‘-hese circunctances, 2nd resnondent has seriously en ed in law in rejecinq ts claim th oeti— tioner on the ‘wound that the petitioner did not file Form N.5O it is his suhuission that sin e he claim o the netitioner s€ckirg rPu larlsation of his unauth’- ‘-iced occupation was to’ nenling onsideration ave/tcte cn ng irto force of Section 94A of the ct, this Court that keaoing in mind/the apolication arlier piled by the netitioner ws pendi g ocsid ration, gave a dIrection to the Authorities to exan 4 ne the case of tIe petitioner t ‘guarlise I-is unautborsed occupation in resoect of land rcferr to abov°, ‘ SrI Icotlan, learned 0 overnment -dv-!cte h we t 1 p 1 od/ rtn a 1 se irnuaned on the cround that/the p’-tltioner did not fi’ -‘or Nc, 0, e ‘Th re° ondit as justifIed in issuinq te conmunicatlon im ucn’d in this ustiion, — C — 7, 1 m unabl° t e t the suission of the learned nrnment Advocate fr tzo reasons, Firstly, the claim of the petitioner for reqularfsation of nis unautho rlsed occuoation n resnect of the land Ia m,estion has been nendirr adiudicstion lona nrior to the comma Into Force of SectIon 74A of the Act, and the order nassea reectinq his claim was the subject matter f disnute before this court in Writ Pntition r ferred to above, Under these circur a es, in it khe view, that havin; rRga d o t t d cumtances it cas’, t applit it i I y th peti— tioier prior to n o to ect 9” ftheA a r t a a t an a 1’ation ft 9 — abe t’t eetdnq reql t t and in auestlon. Srondl’, t’a oart in the Writ Petjtncn rfprr-! it aoove had suactficallv dirccteI the Authoritis t exrnine the se vflis - seeking reclarjon of/Ilerd unauthorised cccunatjnn o the Ian 1 in iuestion, it wss not e6e nerminibja fr h’ 7.8 eson 4 ar.t to rei.ct t lain n heqru’ ha 1” .ttior has not fila4 ?ortq ‘io.SO as pin-°- tv2er Zection 94.-k ot •‘e ct. The utrnrit4es are b-inS ty .e ord°r tedE j It a ourt •lrit ocUtion nSa r. t bar 8. F- 1° es or ta ed ibo;e, ie order/conaunic&’ion, Annex’re-G is liable to be p.ihed. &ccor&tngly. it is mashed. The rd responJet ‘otvitte. is dire ted t an— aider t ie ‘l ira of t’ie oetitionar fox regu lari’ation of is una’stbnrised occunation ft resrect of t e tan. teferred to above an Vie basi of ie aol atiosatJt av ee fil4 an3 which 1-ave be n referred to 4n order Annaxufe.-?, as °n -attow ; ib ossl bIn ev1atanywartet 4 ea e, ot.e tin U I t 3’ 1’ e te 0 t di f cots’ of t’c or4er, ri aco- rdance with fl’w an after qiv’r.çy an rjpt,orrunity tc. tne petstaoner. 9. ArrriLngIy, t’Cs p°titicn iz a...wej 11 i o’etof Rulci I. •ud n ir e 3b fl a. ci) ci ci) ci ci) U 03 ci cic w r4 • ci ci, ci • ci cci ci I C 0 V 10