1. The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing of Annexure - M, which is an order directing the petitioner to remove the structure that has been put up by him illegally.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had given an application seeking for regularization of the unauthorized construction that he had put up on 03.12.2015. The copy of this application is produced as Document No.1 along with the memo filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate.

3. This application indicates that, the petitioner was seeking for regularization of an unauthorized construction that he claimed to have put up in property bearing Survey No.158 measuring about 1,600 square feet on a plot measuring 40' X 40'.

4. The petitioner also contends in his petition that he had obtained a license to put up a construction on 21.09.2023 from the Panchayat Development Officer and, on the basis of this license, he had put up the structure and he also places reliance on a no objection certificate issued by the President to the effect that there was no arrears of revenue.

5. Petitioner also seeks to place reliance on an electric bill to indicate that he is in possession of the property and the said property has also been given an electricity connection.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that, this is a case where the petitioner is abusing the process of this Court. He points out that, in the year 1992, the petitioner's brother applied for a site under the Ashraya Scheme and, he was also granted a site under the said scheme.

7. Thereafter, in the year 2015, both the Petitioner as well as his mother made an application seeking for grant of a site under the Ashraya Scheme and the claim of the petitioner under the aforementioned application dated 03.12.2015 was actually rejected by the Tahsildar with a clear observation that, there was no house constructed for entertaining the application filed by the petitioner, the copy of the endorsement is produced as Document No.2.

8. Learned AGA points out that the application of the petitioner's mother was granted.

9. Learned AGA also points out that, this rejection was not challenged by the petitioner. Learned AGA also points out that thereafter on 21.02.2024, the petitioner's mother, in fact, gifted the site that she was allotted under the Ashraya Scheme under registered gift deed and the katha was also changed in the name of the petitioner and, he was also paying taxes in respect of the said property, which was given to him as a gift by his mother.

10. Learned AGA points out that, this material fact has been suppressed and an argument is sought to be advanced that the petitioner is a site less person and, he had put up a dwelling house, which he is entitled to be regularized under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

11. As far as the contention of the petitioner that a license had been granted by the Panchayat Development Officer, learned AGA places on record the affidavit filed by the by B.R.Narayanaswamy, who was working as a Panchayat Development Officer, who has stated that the building license which is produced by the petitioner as Annexure - G is a fabricated document and the signature found thereon is not his signature. He has also produced the copy of his PAN card to indicate that the signature found does differ substantially and, this was a clear case of forgery.

12. He also states that the procedure for issuance of a building construction license by an applicant was that, a request is required to be made through the online portal and, thereafter, documents are verified and the same would be presented in a meeting before the Panchayat, but, in the instant case, no such application was filed by the petitioner and, this also indicates that the grant of the license was a rank forgery.

13. Learned AGA has also places on record an affidavit of Smt.Rajeshwari, the President of the Channenahalli Grama Panchayat and she has also stated that the NOC that is produced by the petitioner at Annexure - J is a forged document and the signature found therein is not her signature. She has also produced a copy of the PAN card to indicate that her signature in Annexure - J vastly differs.

14. She also states in the affidavit that, her office would issue an NOC only in respect of private properties and not for Government lands and that too after verification of records maintained in the office. She has stated that, to her knowledge, the petitioner has not made any application seeking for grant of an NOC. 15. From the above assertions, it is clear that, the petitioner has come to the Court by suppressing material facts.

16. Firstly, the petitioner has not even whispered the fact that the property granted to his mother under the Ashraya Scheme was in fact gifted to him under registered gift deed dated 21.02.2024. He has also suppressed the fact that the katha was also changed from the name of his mother to his name and he has been paying taxes. 17. If the petitioner has admittedly been a recipient of a gift and that too of a property allotted to his mother under the Ashraya Scheme, it is obvious that he would not be entitled for utilization of any site or for registration of an unauthorized dwelling on the Government land.

18. The petitioner by suppressing this material fact is fundamentally trying to abuse the process of the Court and is attempting to snatch an order so as to protect his illegality.

19. As far as the assertion that he demolished the earlier existing structure after obtaining an approval and built a structure is concerned, in the light of the affidavits that are now filed by the PDO and the President, it is also obvious that the petitioner has gone to the extent of forging licenses, NOCs to establish before this Court that he has put up a building lawfully.

20. It is to be stated here that, if the petitioner had built a structure lawfully, the question of regularization of an unauthorized construction would not arise.

21. It is inconceivable that the petitioner would seek for approval of a building plan to construct a house on Government land. The application that is filed by the petitioner is also not forthcoming before this Court.

22. These facts by themselves clearly establish that the petitioner has come to this Court only to secure an order from this Court just to protect his illegality, i.e., the construction of a structure, which has been done on the basis of forged documents.

23. I am therefore of the view that, the petitioner would be disentitled to claim any relief whatsoever and, it would be in the interest of justice that the respondents take immediate action to demolish the structure in question put up by the petitioner.

24. The petitioner shall also be liable to pay costs of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) to the KIDWAI Institute of Oncology within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order for abusing the process of this Court and for attempting to mislead this Court by producing fabricated and forged documents.

25. This petition is therefore dismissed.

26. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.