Karnataka HC Quashes Notice To Remove Villager’s Sheds, Bars Dispossession Until Panchayat Follows 2011 Encroachment Rules

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 9 December 2025 issued by the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, directing him to remove sheds alleged to have been constructed by encroaching land in Survey No. 170/2, Konanduru Village.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed consideration of documents submitted by the petitioner concerning the alleged encroachment and protected him from dispossession during that consideration, subject to his withdrawing a pending civil suit; the petitioner withdrew the suit.

The petitioner claimed that his father had built a house on the land in 1970–71 with the permission of its owner.

The impugned notice treated the land as Panchayat property and alleged that the petitioner had erected a shed on it, but was issued without an inquiry.

The Court referred to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, noting the jurisdiction of competent civil courts to adjudicate suits of a civil nature, including disputes concerning encroachment.

It also identified the Karnataka Panchayat Raj [Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments] Rules, 2011 as providing a statutory process for addressing alleged encroachments on Panchayat property: the jurisdictional Panchayat Development Officer must inspect the property and report to the Executive Officer; the Executive Officer must issue notice of inquiry and, after providing the prescribed opportunity, summarily decide the question of encroachment; an aggrieved person may appeal under Rule 5.

The earlier order required the authorities to consider the petitioner’s documents before determining the encroachment allegation, but the subsequent notice did not reflect an inquiry or a decision reached through the procedure under the 2011 Rules.

Because the notice was issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity under that statutory mechanism, it could not stand. The Court nevertheless preserved the authorities’ ability to pursue the allegation through the prescribed process.

The Court directed that the petitioner’s possession not be disturbed unless and until a report, inquiry, and adjudication were undertaken in accordance with the Karnataka Panchayat Raj [Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments] Rules, 2011. The authorities remained at liberty to initiate proceedings under those Rules.