ORDER : S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J. Petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order passed in R.A.No.12/2011-12 by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur; order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, in R.A.No.9/2003-04 as well as the proceedings before the Tahsildar in case No.LND RUC (KAAS)38:1999-2000. Petitioners have also sought for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F; order passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-D and the endorsement communicating the decision dated 30.05.2004 passed by the Tahsildar and Secretary, Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation. 2. It must be noticed that the petitioners herein claim to be in unauthorised occupation of portions of land in Sy. No. 39 of Amalapura Village and are stated to be cultivating the land for the past more than 30 years. They had submitted an application for regularisation of their unauthorised occupation in Form No. 53. The Respondent No. 4 herein - Tahsildar had issued endorsements to all of the petitioners on the ground that the land sought to be regularized is within 5 kms. of the City Municipal limits. 3. Petitioners submit that such finding is contrary to the facts insofar as the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, in his report dated 24.03.2005 has stated that the land in Sy. No.39 of Amalapura Village is at a distance of 9 kms. from the Municipal limits. In light of such facts, the endorsements of the Tahsildar came to be challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, who by order dated 15.09.2010 has dismissed the appeal and against such order, second appeal was filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') before the Deputy Commissioner, who has affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Such orders have been challenged in the present proceedings. 4. It is to be noticed that during the pendency of the present proceedings, this Court by order dated 07.02.2024 had directed ascertainment of distance between the land in question and the boundary of the City Municipal Council, Tumkur. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) had placed before this Court records relating to ascertainment of the distance while pointing out that the distance was within 5 kms. and accordingly, the applications of the petitioners, it was stated were ineligible and rightly rejected. 6. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) had placed before this Court records relating to ascertainment of the distance while pointing out that the distance was within 5 kms. and accordingly, the applications of the petitioners, it was stated were ineligible and rightly rejected. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioners had challenged the first report relied on by the learned HCGP prepared pursuant to the order dated 07.02.2024. 7. This Court subsequently by order dated 30.10.2025 had directed ascertainment of situation of the property from the Municipal limits and the representative of the petitioners was asked to be present. 8. Learned HCGP has filed a fresh report by way of a memo dated 10.11.2025 and once again, the report would reveal that the property of the petitioners is within 4 kms. Accordingly, learned HCGP submits that the orders impugned require to be affirmed. 9. It must be noticed that Section 94-A of the Act, provides for regularisation of certain cases of unauthorised occupation by constituting a committee. However, the power to regularise unauthorised occupation is circumscribed by restriction under the second proviso to Section 94-A. The second proviso to Section 94-A reads as follows: "Provided further that no land shall be granted in the areas lying within the limits of Cities and City Municipalities specified in column (2) of the Table below and within the distance from such limits specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof: 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the point of reference would be the boundary of the City Municipal Council. In terms of the second proviso extracted above, no land shall be granted in areas lying within the limits prescribed in the table and the table at Sl. No.3 indicates the lands which are within the distance of 5 kms. from the City Municipal Council. If that would be the understanding of the reference made to Sl. No. 3 in the table, in the present case, it must be noticed that the endorsements of the Tahsildar at Annexure-B series issued at the first instance was to the effect that the land of the petitioners was within 5 kms. from the radius of the Tumkur City Municipal Council. 11. The endorsements at Annexure-B series were called in question before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.9/2003-04. from the radius of the Tumkur City Municipal Council. 11. The endorsements at Annexure-B series were called in question before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.9/2003-04. The Assistant Commissioner has rejected the appeal of the petitioners reiterating that the properties are situated within 5 kms. of Tumkur City Municipal Council. Such order was taken up before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A. No.12/2011-12 by way of a second appeal. The Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner refers to the report of the Public Works Department dated 21.09.2019, which would indicate that the land of the petitioners was within 4.5 kms. from the Tumkur City Municipal Council. Such orders have been challenged in the present case. 12. It must be noticed that there are concurrent findings by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners had contended that the proceedings of the Public Works Department dated 21.09.2019 from which the Deputy Commissioner had recorded a finding that the properties of the petitioners were within 4.5 kms. of the municipal limit was not made available to the petitioners and the report of the Public Works Department at Annexure-E dated 24.03.2005 produced along with the writ petition would indicate that the village in which the land is situated i.e., village of Amalapura is 9 kms. from the Tumkur City Municipal Council. The ambiguity by the report at Annexure-E was sought to be cleared by this Court in its order dated 07.02.2024 which directed ascertainment of distance between the land of the petitioners and the boundary of the City Municipal Council, Tumkur. 13. Pursuant to such order, it is noticed that the State has filed an affidavit on 22.07.2025 and had relied on certain proceedings at Document Nos. 1 and 2, which would indicate that the property was situated at a distance of 4.68 kms. However, petitioners had objected to such report stating that the same was conducted behind the back of the petitioners. However, it must be noticed that once again the Court by order dated 30.10.2025 had directed ascertainment of the distance in the presence of the petitioners. 14. Learned HCGP has filed a memo for production of documents on 10.11.2025. The report of the Assistant Director of Land Records at Document No. 1 dated 06.11.2025 would indicate that the properties are at a distance of 4 kms. 14. Learned HCGP has filed a memo for production of documents on 10.11.2025. The report of the Assistant Director of Land Records at Document No. 1 dated 06.11.2025 would indicate that the properties are at a distance of 4 kms. There is reference also to one Sri.Manjunath S/o. Siddappa, being present during such process including travelling in his vehicle bearing No.KA- 06-HQ-5372, which would also record that the distance is less than 5 kms. Para 2 of the report at Document No. 1 filed along with the memo for production of documents reads as follows: 15. It must be noticed that in light of the concurrent findings by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner as well as the reports on two occasions made by the officers of the Revenue Department pursuant to orders of this Court, there is a consistent finding that the property of the petitioners is within 5 kms. The order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner containing findings of facts regarding distance being concurrent findings, no grounds are made out for interference with the said orders. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a senior officer may once again conduct measurement, deserves to be rejected as the measurement on two occasions pursuant to orders of this Court by officials and reports of whom are part of record would clearly indicate that the distance of the properties of the petitioners which is the subject matter of application for regularisation is within 5 kms. 17. Accordingly the impugned orders are affirmed and the petition is rejected.