Karnataka HC Leaves Alleged Site Encroachment To Pending Civil Suit, Rejects Plea To Direct Officials To Act on Hassan Landowner’s Complaint

The petitioner claimed that his family owned land in Survey No. 52, Chikkahonenahalli Village, and alleged that respondents 5 and 6 had encroached on Site No. 6 and erected pillars there.

He had filed O.S. No. 651/2025 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking a permanent injunction and asserted that the Civil Court had granted a temporary injunction against the private respondents.

After the petitioner complained to the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the grievance to the relevant authorities, and the municipal authority called on the parties to produce documents concerning their claims.

The petitioner then sought a writ of mandamus directing the police and municipal authorities to consider the Deputy Commissioner’s communication dated 3 March 2025.

The Court applied the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which mandamus was not warranted on these facts where the grievance had received consideration by the authorities and the underlying dispute concerned private parties’ competing claims to possession and alleged encroachment.

An administrative communication forwarding a grievance for appropriate action does not determine the parties’ rights or establish that an encroachment occurred.

The Court also held that, where the same possession and interference dispute is already before a competent Civil Court, the petitioner should pursue the remedies available there.

The Court treated the dispute as one concerning alleged encroachment on private property and interference with possession, matters already raised in the petitioner’s civil suit.

It found that the Deputy Commissioner’s communication merely requested appropriate action and did not adjudicate the parties’ property rights; moreover, the municipal authority had called on the parties to produce supporting documents, indicating that the grievance had received consideration.

Because determining whether an encroachment had occurred would require resolution of disputed claims and the Civil Court was already seized of the matter, the Court declined to direct removal of the alleged encroachment or otherwise intervene through mandamus.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court.

The Court expressly made no finding on the merits of the parties’ claims concerning title, possession, or alleged encroachment.