Summary eviction is impermissible for disputed titles; Section 211 adjudication is a mandatory prerequisite.

Petitioners claim absolute ownership of ancestral property in Kodagahalli Village, supported by E-Khatha records and continuous possession for over eighty years

Respondent No. 4 (a neighbor) alleged that the Petitioners encroached upon a public road/gramathana land and filed a representation for its removal

Pursuant to a direction in a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 18300/2022), the Respondent authorities initiated proceedings under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011

Respondent No. 2 (Executive Officer) passed an order on 13.02.2025 directing the removal of the alleged encroachment

which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 1)

The Petitioners challenged these orders, asserting that the property is private, a civil suit (O.S. No. 210/2022) with a temporary injunction in their favor is pending, and a prior report by the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) stated the land was outside Panchayat jurisdiction

Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011, which limits summary eviction to public/Panchayat land and excludes "private property"

Section 211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which provides a specific mechanism for the Assistant Commissioner to decide property claims involving a Grama Panchayat

Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana established that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or court order if it is inherently lacking

Division Bench ruling in Chief Executive Officer v. Smt. Gowramma, which mandates Section 211 proceedings as a prerequisite to encroachment removal when title is contested

Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, prohibiting summary eviction in cases of bona fide title disputes

The Court reasoned that Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules is triggered only when there is an undisputed encroachment on public land; it expressly excludes "private property"

Petitioners presented prima facie evidence of private title via Khatha records and an 80-year possession history, creating a bona fide dispute

The Court noted that the PDO’s own report in 2023 admitted the land was outside Panchayat jurisdiction, yet the Executive Officer ignored this jurisdictional fact

Citing Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, the Court held that since the land's character was disputed, the "jurisdictional fact" required for the 2011 Rules was absent, rendering the proceedings coram non judice

Furthermore, following the Gowramma precedent, the Court held that the authorities were legally bound to first establish Panchayat title via Section 211 of the 1993 Act through the Assistant Commissioner

Factually, the Court Commissioner’s report showed an 11-foot gap between the structure and the road, contradicting the claim of a clear road encroachment

the Court found a violation of natural justice as the spot inspection was conducted without notice to the Petitioners

It held that summary encroachment rules cannot be invoked where there is a genuine dispute over title; such claims must be adjudicated under Section 211 of the 1993 Act

The Court granted the Panchayat liberty to initiate proper proceedings under Section 211 before the Assistant Commissioner and ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding the physical position of the property pending such inquiry

The pending civil suit (O.S. No. 210/2022) remains unaffected