ORDER : (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the order dated 14/02/2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bellary/Respondent No.2 in bearing Case No.KAM.APPEAL/81/2009-10 marked at Annexure-A and grant any other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner had applied for regularization of his unauthorized occupation in respect of land covered under Sy.No.135/A measuring 6.93 acres situated at Dammur village, taluka and district Ballari. On the spot inspection being conducted, the petitioner was assigned 4.90 acres of the said land and the assigned land came to be numbered as Sy.No.135A/2. 3. Respondent No.1 contending that the petitioner was not eligible for such grant since the petitioner, his mother and brothers owned nearly 40 acres and there is no need to regularize the same had approached the Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.1, which came to be challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter for inquiry by setting aside the grant made in favour of the petitioner. It is challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Smt. Pallavi S.Pachchapure, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit firstly that respondent No.1 has no locus to file an appeal challenging the grant in favour of the petitioner and secondly, by relying on the proviso to sub-Section 94(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short ‘the Act’), she submits that even if the petitioner were to own certain lands, there is no embargo on grant of lands by way of regularization since the petitioner would be entitled to 2 hectares as per the said proviso. 5. Smt.V.Vidya Iyer, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would contend that there is a gross abuse of the process of law on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner and the petitioner’s family owning nearly 40 acres of Government land, undue advantage is sought to be taken by the petitioner to the detriment of the interest of other eligible persons. The petitioner cannot therefore be permitted to abuse the law and seek for regularization of land merely because the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the said land. The petitioner cannot therefore be permitted to abuse the law and seek for regularization of land merely because the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the said land. On that ground, she submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner to hold a detailed and proper enquiry being the one necessitated in the circumstances, need not be intervened with and the above petition be dismissed. 6. Heard Smt.Pallavi S.Pachchapure and Sri Srinand A.Pachchapure, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.M.Khannur, learned AGA appear for respondents No.2 to 4 and Smt.V.Vidya Iyer, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 7. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of Sy.No.135A, as regards which regularization application was filed and 4.90 acres thereof had been assigned to the petitioner. It is not that the petitioner owned the land but, it is on account of unauthorized occupation, a regularization has been sought for by filing form No.53 under Rule 108 CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). Thus, it is the requirement of the said Rules i.e., which is required to be complied with by the petitioner to be entitled for regularization of the land, who is admitted to be in unauthorized occupation. 8. Rule 108 CC of the Rules is reproduced herein as under for easy reference; 108CC. Procedure under Section 94-B. :- (1) For the purpose of Section 94 to the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk shall on receipt of an application or by issuing a public notice in Form No. 53 and by sending individual notice to the occupants in Form No. 54 identify the unauthorised occupants. Procedure under Section 94-B. :- (1) For the purpose of Section 94 to the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk shall on receipt of an application or by issuing a public notice in Form No. 53 and by sending individual notice to the occupants in Form No. 54 identify the unauthorised occupants. (2) He shall thereafter prepare a list of persons eligible for grant in accordance with the provisions of Section 94-B in Form No. 55 and enter the details in a register, kept in Form No. 56 and shall within a period of three months from the date of issues of public notice send all related documents to the Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised under Section 94-B. (3) The Deputy Commissioner or other Officer authorised under Section 94-B shall on receipt of the documents from the Tahsildar make spot inspection, examine the documentary and circumstantial evidence, determine the eligibility or otherwise and make the recommendation to the committee within three months from the date of receipt of the document from the Tahsildar. (4) Provisions of sub-rules (3), (4) and (5) of Rule 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply for the purpose of grant of land under Section 94- B.] 9. The aforesaid Rule prescribes the manner and procedure in which an application filed under Section 94A of the Act is to be dealt with. Section 94A of the Act is reproduced herein under for easy reference; “94A. Regularisation of certain cases of unauthorised occupation by constituting committee etc.—(1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the State Government shall, by notification, constitute for [each constituency of the Legislative Assembly] a committee consisting of such number of members [not exceeding five] of whom one shall be a member of Legislative Assembly for the purpose of grant of land under sub-section (4). (2) The Tahsildar of the concerned taluk shall be the Secretary of the committee. [(2-A) The State Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary, constitute one or more additional committees for a taluk for the purpose of grant of land under sub-section (4) consisting of such number not exceeding five, as may be prescribed and the State Government shall nominate from among the members one of them as the Chairman and another as the Secretary of the committee. When an additional committee is constituted, the Deputy Commissioner shall determine the jurisdictions of the committee and the additional committee and transfer the pending applications to the respective committee.] (3) The [committee or additional committee] shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (4) Nothing in section 94 shall prevent the committee constituted under sub-section (1), [or additional committee constituted under sub-section (2-A)], but subject to such rules as may be prescribed, if any, to grant to the person liable to be evicted under that section, the land which he had unauthorisedly occupied prior to the [first day of January, 2005] (hereinafter referred to as the said date) or any portion thereof, if he satisfies the prescribed conditions (including the extent of the land held and unauthorisedly occupied by him) and makes [within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2022] (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act), an application for such grant in such form along with such fees as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount payable under sub-section (5): Provided that the land so granted together with the land already held by such person, shall not exceed two hectares of ‘D’ class of land or its equivalent thereto: 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: TABLE Sl. No. Places Distances (1) (2) (3) 1. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangarpalike under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 18 kms 2. The Cities of Belagavi, Kalaburagi, Hubballi – Dharawada, Mangaluru and Mysuru respectively under provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; And Other Municipal Corporations under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 10 kms Corporations 3. All City Municipal Councils (CMCs) under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 5 kms 4. The Cities of Belagavi, Kalaburagi, Hubballi – Dharawada, Mangaluru and Mysuru respectively under provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; And Other Municipal Corporations under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 10 kms Corporations 3. All City Municipal Councils (CMCs) under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 5 kms 4. All Town Municipal Councils (TMCs) and Town Panchayats under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 3 kms Provided that no such land shall be regularized under this section if such land,-- (a) lies in the line of natural drains or course of river valley; (b) belongs to any local authority or a statutory or non-statutory body of the State Government or Central Government; (c) coming in the way of existing or proposed roads, inner or outer ring roads, national highways, by pass over ring roads including those proposed for widening and railway lines, tramways, mass rapid transit system projects, communications and other civil facilities or public utilities; (d) is reserved for parks, playgrounds, open places or for providing any civic amenities; (e) is abutting to neighbouring property, storm water drain, tank bed areas; or (f) is falling within the Land proposed for acquisition or is required for any proposed project of the state Government or any local authority, statutory or non-statutory body of the State Government.] Provided also that a person who has unauthorisedly occupied the land, falling within the distance of five kilometres from the limits of the city municipality having less than fifty thousand population, prior to the 14th day of April, 1990, shall make an application for such grant, within three months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1994.] Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to Forest lands, plantation lands or lands referred to in sub-section (2) of section 79. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, ‘D’ class of land means ‘D’ class of land or an extent equivalent thereto consisting of one or more classes of land, as specified and determined in accordance with the formula in Schedule I to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. (5) The amount payable for the grant of land under sub-section (1) [sub-section (2-A)] shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) The amount payable for the grant of land under sub-section (1) [sub-section (2-A)] shall be such as may be prescribed. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-section,— (a) The Tahsildar concerned shall issue the order of grant of land, on the recommendations of the committee or additional committee, as the case may be, if any, and issue the saguvali chit. The amount payable, if any, shall be paid in three equal instalments of which the first one shall be paid before the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order of grant and the remaining two within such period as may be prescribed; and] [(b) x x x;] (c) the trees, if any, standing on the land granted and the granite in such land shall continue to belong to the Government, which may at its discretion be disposed off by it, in such manner as it may deem fit.]” 10. A perusal of Section 94A of the Act, firstly would indicate that a committee is to be constituted to consider any application for regularization of unauthorized occupation. Subsection 4 of Section 94A of the Act indicates that the applicant should satisfy the prescribed conditions including the extent of land held and unauthorizedly occupied by him and have made an application within one year from the date of commencement of The Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2018. The provisio thereof also makes it clear that the land so granted together with the land already held by such person shall not exceed 2 hectares of D-class land or equivalent thereto. 11. In the present matter, the classification of the land is not in question suffice it to say that as per the proviso to subsection 4 of Section 94A of the Act, the maximum land that could be held by any person is 2 hectares, which translate to 4.94 acres. 12. In the present case, the contention of respondent No.1 by producing various RTC’s is that the family of the petitioner owns nearly 40 acres of land. Out of which 5.68 acres in Sy.No.140 acres of Dammur village and 1.52 acres of land of Dammur village in Sy.No.136A/2 also stands in the name of the petitioner. 13. Apart therefrom, there are various other documents which have been produced as regards holding of the family. Out of which 5.68 acres in Sy.No.140 acres of Dammur village and 1.52 acres of land of Dammur village in Sy.No.136A/2 also stands in the name of the petitioner. 13. Apart therefrom, there are various other documents which have been produced as regards holding of the family. In this regard, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid lands were acquired by the petitioner subsequent to the grant made in favour of the petitioner on 17.01.2004 and the same cannot be taken into consideration. 14. A perusal of the RTC’s which have been produced by respondent No.1 at Annexures-R2 would indicate that though the said lands were mutated in name of the petitioner subsequently, the same were mutated in furtherance of a partition. Thereby, indicating that the lands were always belonging to the family as regards which, the petitioner is a member and had undivided interest therein. 15. In that regard, I am of the considered opinion that it is not only the land that is standing in the name of an applicant, which would have to be looked into, but also the undivided interest if at all of the applicant in the family holding which would have to be taken into consideration for determination of the rights under the proviso to subsection 4 of Section 94A of the Act. It is for this reason that the Deputy Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for holding a proper enquiry to ascertain the lands which fall to the share of the petitioner. Though of course, on the face of it, on account of the partition, the petitioner has derived title of 5.68 acres in Sy.No.140, which would indicate that the petitioner had undivided interest in respect of the said lands, which was more than 2 hectares, a remand has been made to provide an opportunity to petitioner to place all the relevant documents before the Assistant Commissioner for consideration and for a proper order to be passed. 16. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the said order. It is up to the petitioner to place all the documents that the petitioner wishes to rely upon before the Assistant Commissioner to enable the Assistant Commissioner to pass necessary orders. 16. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the said order. It is up to the petitioner to place all the documents that the petitioner wishes to rely upon before the Assistant Commissioner to enable the Assistant Commissioner to pass necessary orders. It would also be open for respondent No.1 to place all the documents that respondent No.1 relies upon to enable the truth to come out and for the Assistant Commissioner to pass necessary orders so that any abuse to the benevolent statute is prevented and the rightful person is granted land which is a scarce commodity. 17. In the above circumstances, there will be no grounds made out and the petition stands dismissed.