KLGP proceedings cannot continue while the underlying encroachment notice remains under judicial challenge.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 22 March 2022 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court in LGC(S) No. 246/2016.

The dispute concerned 11,592.72 sq. m. allotted by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) to the petitioners under an agreement dated 31 July 1997 as a civic amenity site for a hospital.

Revenue authorities alleged that the petitioners had encroached on a Raja Kaluve on the site.

The petitioners had separately challenged the notice concerning the alleged encroachment in W.P. No. 64551/2016, in which an interim order had been granted and the petition remained pending.

The High Court considered whether the land-grabbing proceedings could continue while that challenge remained pending.

1. Whether proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, could continue against the petitioners when the notice alleging encroachment on the Raja Kaluve was under challenge in a pending writ petition subject to an interim order.

2. Whether the Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court’s order permitting the proceedings to continue should be set aside.

Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 defines a “land grabber” to include a person who commits or has committed land grabbing, as well as specified persons who assist, abet, or succeed such a person.

Section 2(f) defines “land grabbing” as grabbing land without lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession, or engaging in specified related conduct involving illegal occupation or unauthorised structures.

The Act also prohibits a person from committing or causing land grabbing.

The Court referred to proceedings under Section 4(3) and held that, in the circumstances of this case, those proceedings could not continue while the Revenue Authorities’ notice was under challenge in a pending writ petition.

The Court noted that the disputed land was the same land allotted to the petitioners by the BDA, and that the allegation of encroachment arose from the Revenue Authorities’ notice already challenged in W.P. No. 64551/2016, where an interim order was in force.

Because the validity of the notice and the related dispute were pending before the High Court, the Court held that the Land Grabbing Court’s proceedings under Section 4(3) could not proceed in the meantime.

It did not determine whether a Raja Kaluve existed on the site or resolve the parties’ substantive claims, leaving those matters for the pending writ petition.

All parties’ contentions were left open for determination in W.P. No. 64551/2016.