Revenue Authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate eviction or encroachment proceedings once land is included within Bengaluru Municipal limits.

The appellants and respondents are embroiled in a title dispute over lands in Sy. Nos. 33 and 34 of Kenchenahalli Village, Bengaluru

The petitioners in W.P. No. 17208/2024 (Respondents herein) sought a Mandamus to compel the Tahsildar to implement an eviction order dated 10.01.2023 issued under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue (KLR) Act, 1964, against alleged encroachers

Conversely, other petitioners challenged this order, asserting they held valid title through registered sale deeds and that the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction because the land fell within the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) limits

The Writ Court allowed the Mandamus for eviction but dismissed the challenges to the Tahsildar’s order, relegating those parties to Civil Court

1. Whether the Revenue Authorities retain jurisdiction to initiate or implement eviction proceedings under the KLR Act after the subject land has been included within the municipal limits of the BBMP

2. Whether a Writ of Mandamus for eviction can be issued when the title and possession of the property are the subject of pending civil suits

Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, regarding the removal of unauthorized occupation of land

In J.M. Narayana v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, holding that once agricultural land is included within Corporation limits via a Gazette Notification, the KLR Act ceases to apply

Sunil Chajed v. State of Karnataka, clarifying that while revenue authorities may retain limited powers for boundary fixing (Section 140), they cannot decide questions of title or possession once the land is municipalized

Sections 243(3) and 244(1) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act were identified as the appropriate statutory provisions for the BBMP to address unauthorized constructions

The Court examined a Gazette Notification dated 16.01.2007, which proved the subject lands were absorbed into the BBMP jurisdiction nearly two decades prior

Although the Revenue Department argued the land remained "agricultural" in nature because no formal conversion order was passed, the Court determined that the submission to municipal jurisdiction effectively stripped the Tahsildar of authority to pass or implement eviction orders under the KLR Act

The Court noted that the Tahsildar's implementation of Section 192A was a jurisdictional error

Furthermore, the Joint Commissioner of the BBMP filed an affidavit undertaking to initiate action against unauthorized structures under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, which the Court deemed the proper legal recourse

Given that O.S. No. 125/2020 and other title suits are pending, the Court reasoned that revenue authorities cannot summarily eject parties whose rights are currently being adjudicated by a competent Civil Court

The Court directed that any further action regarding unauthorized constructions must be taken by the BBMP under municipal laws. The parties were directed to resolve their disputes regarding title and possession through the pending full-fledged trials in the competent Civil Court