ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents. 2. Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that The petitioner's mother Smt.Vijiyamma, D/o Kempaiah, who was in unauthorised cultivation of 2 acres of land in Survey No.28 of Agara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, was granted the said lands in terms of the resolution passed by the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation. However, some persons, who are inimically disposed towards the grantees, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.LND RA (S) 3/2008-09 seeking cancellation of the grant made in favour of the Smt.Vijiyamma and other grantees. In the said proceedings Smt. Vijiyamma is arrayed as respondent No.4. The Assistant Commissioner, in the order dated 12.08.2016 noticed that the resolution passed by the committee on 06.07.1999 was subject to the Tahsildar obtaining approval at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and on the condition that the lands in question are not within the prohibited distance of 18 kilometres from the limits of the then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. It was found that the Tahsildar has not obtained the approval of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. It was also found that as per the information placed before the Assistant Commissioner, the lands in question were within the prohibited limits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, with a direction to examine the issues, particularly, regarding whether the lands in question fall within the prohibited distance of 18 kilometres from the limits of the then Bangalore City Corporation as on 14.04.1990, the date on which the provision for regularisation of unauthorised occupation under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act came into force. It was further directed that the Tahsildar shall place the information before the committee and obtain approval and then take necessary action as may be warranted in accordance with law and the Rules. Till such time, it was directed that status quo shall be maintained in respect of the lands in question. 4. It was further directed that the Tahsildar shall place the information before the committee and obtain approval and then take necessary action as may be warranted in accordance with law and the Rules. Till such time, it was directed that status quo shall be maintained in respect of the lands in question. 4. Nevertheless, the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, submitted a report before the Assistant Commissioner on 03.10.2013 stating that the lands were situated within the prohibited distance of 18 kilometres from the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The Assistant Commissioner took up the matter once again in proceedings bearing No.LND.RA(S)07/2013-14. Objections were also received at the hands of the respondents therein. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the Tahsildar that in terms of the satellite images the distance between the lands in question as per the aerial route was 10.10 km from the limits of the erstwhile Bengaluru City Corporation and 3.40 km from the limits of the present BBMP limits. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that the lands could not have been granted and accordingly proceeded to cancel the grants made in favour of the respondents therein, including Smt.Vijiyamma, who is respondent No.8 in the said proceedings. 5. Being aggrieved of the said decision of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 49(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 23.06.2023 partly allowing the appeal while setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the matter was once again remanded back to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to find out as to whether the lands in question were within the prohibited distance as on 14.04.1990. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite such orders being passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 23.06.2023, the Tahsildar has not taken any action. Therefore, a representation is once again given by the petitioners at Annexure-A dated 06.08.2025 to issue necessary directions to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to issue saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the grant made in favour of Smt.Vijiyamma has been cancelled, question of issuance of saguvali chit at this stage would not arise. 8. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the grant made in favour of Smt.Vijiyamma has been cancelled, question of issuance of saguvali chit at this stage would not arise. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the factum of grant made in favour of Smt.Vijiyamma along with several other persons is not disputed and the matter arose out of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, cancelling the grant made in favour of Smt.Vijiyamma, the matter cannot be reconsidered by the Tahsildar or the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation. The matter has to be reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner alone. 9. In that view of the matter, this court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 3 rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division to take up the matter once again in Case No. LND.RA.(S)07/2013-14, while calling for all necessary information from the Public Works Department regarding the distance between the lands in question and the boundary of the then Bangalore City Corporation as it existed on 14.04.1990. 10. At this juncture, it is also to be noticed that by way of a recent amendment a fourth proviso was inserted after the table in Section 94A that the distance shall be calculated aerially from the limits of the jurisdiction of the City Corporation or Municipality concerned. The question as to whether in this matter where the grants were made in the year 1999, the distance should be measured aerially or in terms of the axis by road, will be kept open. 11. The Petitioners are directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division on 02.02.2026 without waiting for further notice. The Assistant Commissioner shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from 02.02.2026. 12. Needless to observe that till a final decision is taken by the Assistant Commissioner, the possession of the petitioners on the lands in question shall not be disturbed.