For Sainik Vihar Lands Under BBMP Jurisdiction, Karnataka HC Says Revenue Officials Cannot Enforce Eviction Order; BBMP May Act Against Unauthorised Constructions

Respondents 7–9 sought a mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Yelahanka, to implement orders dated 10 and 20 January 2023 concerning alleged encroachments in Survey Nos. 33 and 34 of Kenchenahalli Village. The Tahsildar’s order had followed a Deputy Commissioner’s direction and recorded alleged encroachment and unauthorised non-agricultural use

The appellants and other site purchasers opposed implementation, asserting that the land formed part of Sainik Vihar Layout, that they held registered sale deeds and possessed constructed sites, and that ownership and possession were disputed in pending civil suits

The Single Judge allowed W.P. No. 17208/2024 and directed implementation of the Tahsildar’s order dated 10 January 2023

The appellants challenged that direction, raising, among other matters, the Tahsildar’s jurisdiction and the effect of the pending civil disputes

The Court applied the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in light of the prior Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 1531/2024 and connected matters. That decision held that, following the land’s inclusion within the jurisdiction of the BBMP by a 2007 Gazette Notification, revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaints or take action under the KLR Act, including implementing earlier revenue orders

It further relied on the BBMP’s powers under Sections 243(3) and 244(1) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act to take statutory action against unauthorised constructions

Disputed questions of title and possession were to be determined by the competent Civil Court on a full trial

The Court found that the present appeal arose from the same common Single Judge order and raised grounds substantially similar to those considered in W.A. No. 1531/2024 and connected appeals

Following that Division Bench ruling, it concluded that the revenue authorities could not implement the Tahsildar’s order under the KLR Act; any action concerning unauthorised constructions was for the BBMP under the applicable statutory provisions. The parties’ competing claims to title and possession remained for determination in the pending civil proceedings

Accordingly, the Court saw no need for independent reconsideration of the appellants’ grounds

The resulting position was that revenue authorities could not proceed under the KLR Act to implement the impugned order; the BBMP could take action against unauthorised constructions under the relevant statutory provisions, while title and possession disputes remained for the competent Civil Court