Karnataka HC Quashes Belakavadi Panchayat’s Move To Cancel Siblings’ Property Entries Before Encroachment Inquiry

The petitioners claimed title to and possession of properties within Belakavadi Gram Panchayat, relying on sale deeds executed in the 1920s and a sale certificate issued in 1956.

The properties had been assigned different khatha numbers and measurements.

In W.P. No. 32773/2025, they challenged proceedings initiated for removal of alleged encroachment; in W.P. No. 34396/2025, they challenged a Gram Panchayat resolution cancelling revenue entries relating to the properties.

The Court noted that the record did not show a prior inspection or report by the jurisdictional Panchayat Development Officer (PDO).

The Court applied the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Constructions and Encroachments) Rules, 2011.

The procedure requires a PDO inspection resulting in a report before the Executive Officer conducts the enquiry contemplated under Rule 4; an aggrieved party may pursue the appellate remedy under Rule 5.

The Court further held that cancellation of revenue entries should follow, rather than precede, the conclusion of the enquiry into the alleged encroachment.

The challenged proceedings did not refer to a PDO inspection or report.

Because the alleged encroachment had to be examined through the procedure under Rules 4 and 5, the petitioners were entitled to the prescribed enquiry and an opportunity to respond to the inspection report.

The resolution cancelling the revenue entries was premature: the enquiry into encroachment had not yet been completed, so the cancellation decision put the “cart before the horse”.

It also allowed W.P. No. 32773/2025, while permitting the Chief Executive Officer to institute a Rule 4 enquiry upon receiving an inspection report from the jurisdictional PDO.

If an enquiry is instituted, the petitioners must be furnished with the report to enable them to participate fully.