Land-grabbing proceedings remain stayed pending joint inspection and consideration of regularisation claims.

The petitioner claimed to have occupied and used an 8 × 12 square-foot portion of Survey No. 145, Lokapur, for approximately 40 years.

Following a Tahsildar’s report identifying him as an encroacher on Government land, proceedings were initiated before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court in L.G.C. (G) No. 469 of 2023.

The petitioner alleged that the report had been prepared without notice and sought a joint inspection and consideration of whether his occupation could be regularized, asserting that similarly situated occupants had received regularization.

The High Court entertained the petition while the Special Court proceedings were at the notice stage.

1. Whether the Tahsildar should conduct a joint inspection in the petitioner’s presence to verify the alleged encroachment.

2. Whether the competent authority should consider the petitioner’s regularization claim in light of the asserted treatment of similarly situated occupants.

The Court did not identify or interpret any specific statutory provision or precedent.

It exercised its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, under which it entertained the challenge to the Tahsildar’s report and directed a joint inspection and consideration of the petitioner’s claim by the competent authority.

The directions required verification of the alleged encroachment and consideration of the claim; they did not determine the petitioner’s entitlement to regularization or the merits of the land-grabbing proceedings.

The petitioner’s contention that the Tahsildar had reported encroachment without first giving him notice, together with his claim of long-standing occupation and unequal treatment, persuaded the Court to require further administrative verification despite the Special Court matter being at an early stage.

The Court directed a joint inspection in the petitioner’s presence and required the Deputy Commissioner or other competent authority to consider his claim, including in light of the treatment of similarly placed occupants.

It left the determination of encroachment and any resulting proceedings to follow the inspection and the competent authority’s decision.

The Tahsildar was directed to conduct a joint inspection, and the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s claim, with the process to be completed within three months of receipt of the order.

The Special Court proceedings were stayed pending that process; if the resulting findings were adverse to the petitioner, the State could place them before the Special Court, which would be at liberty to resume proceedings in accordance with law.

The petitioner was also left at liberty to approach an appropriate forum if prejudicial orders were passed.