Karnataka HC Stays Land-Grabbing Cases Against 18 Lokapur Residents, Orders Joint Inspection Of Alleged Government-Land Encroachments

The petitioners, residents of Lokapur, claimed possession of separate portions of land in Survey No. 145, measuring three acres in total.

Following a report by the Tahsildar alleging that they had encroached on Government land, proceedings were initiated against them before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, which issued notice.

The petitioners contended that the Tahsildar’s report had been prepared without notice or a hearing and sought a joint inspection and consideration of whether their occupations could be regularised.

They also referred to directions concerning regularisation of similarly placed occupants.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction.

The underlying proceedings were under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act.

No statutory provision beyond the constitutional jurisdiction, or any precedent, was identified as forming the basis of the Court’s reasoning.

The Court considered the petitioners’ allegation that the Tahsildar’s report had been prepared unilaterally and without notice, together with their claim of long-standing occupation and the asserted treatment of similarly placed occupants.

Rather than determine whether the petitioners had encroached or were entitled to regularisation, it directed a joint inspection in their presence and required the competent authority to consider their claims.

It stayed the pending proceedings so those steps could be completed, while preserving the State’s ability to place adverse findings before the Special Court.

The Tahsildar was directed to conduct a joint inspection, and the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioners’ regularisation claims.

The inspection and related orders were to be completed within three months of receipt of the order.

Proceedings before the Special Court were to remain stayed meanwhile; if the findings were adverse, the State could place them before that Court, which would be at liberty to restart proceedings in accordance with law.

The petitioners could approach an appropriate forum if any resulting order prejudiced them.