Mr.Megharaj Vs the State of Karnataka

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner, who is 70 years old and is unfortunately made to run pillar to post assailing the action of respondent No.6, Didgi village gram panchayat, despite having obtained a comprehensive decree in O.S.No.1256/1994.

¶34

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order

¶36

dated 14.11.2022 issued by respondents No.6 and 7, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment and hand over vacant possession within seven days from the date of receipt of the said order. This order is challenged on the ground that respondents No.6 and 7, despite having suffered a decree in O.S.No.1256/1994, continue to lay claim over the property that has been declared to be owned and possessed by the petitioner. It is the specific grievance of

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the petitioner that the civil court in O.S.No.1256/1994 has decreed the suit in his favour, declaring him to be the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the open site measuring 46 feet east-west and 26 feet north-south, situated in Gram Panchayat No.201. Despite the decree, respondents No.6 and 7, on vague and unsubstantiated allegations of encroachment on the government school property, have proceeded to initiate coercive action against the petitioner, as evidenced by Annexure-A.

¶40

Respondents No.6 and 7, in their statement of objections, have sought to justify the impugned action on the premise that the drive for removal of encroachments is being undertaken pursuant to directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, as per the communication at Annexure-R2 addressed to the Assistant Director of Land Records. They further assert that a survey has been conducted by the office of the Deputy Director of Land Records, as evidenced by Annexure-R3. Relying on these documents, respondents No.6 and 7 seek dismissal of the

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

petition, contending that the action initiated is in accordance with the directions of the higher authorities and survey findings.

¶44

In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on additional documents, particularly the proceedings before the Lokayukta. It is submitted that officials of the gram panchayat, including the Panchayat Development Officer, the Executive Officer, and the Tahasildar, have unconditionally undertaken before the Lokayukta that the petitioner will not be dispossessed from the property covered under the decree. Based on this assurance, the Lokayukta has closed the complaint proceedings. This undertaking, it is argued, clearly indicates that the respondents themselves had admitted the petitioner’s lawful possession and ownership over the property in question.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondents

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

No.6 and 7, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, this Court finds that the impugned order at Annexure-A is wholly cryptic, arbitrary, and devoid of essential particulars. The said order fails to disclose the identity of the property or specify the extent and nature of the alleged encroachment. Surprisingly, the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-R2 also does not contain any details of the property purportedly encroached upon. It merely refers to removal of encroachments over government school land, without identifying the land in question. Likewise, the communication at Annexure-R3 from the Deputy Director of Land Records suffers from the same defect , it lacks any property description. The Tahasildar’s report prepared pursuant to directions of the Assistant Director of Land Records (Annexure-R5) merely lists names of alleged encroachers, including the petitioner, but again, omits critical details such as survey numbers, boundaries, and methodology adopted for survey. Though a sketch is

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

appended, even the sketch fails to reflect the exact location or demarcation of the government school land allegedly encroached upon.

¶52

In light of these deficiencies, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, whose title and possession over the suit property has been upheld by a competent civil court, cannot be subjected to arbitrary and speculative proceedings initiated by respondent authorities. There is a complete lack of material to prima facie establish that the petitioner has encroached upon any government land, much less the land belonging to a government school. On the contrary, the petitioner has been able to produce a civil court decree affirming his ownership over the subject property. In the considered view of this Court, the said decree has a direct bearing on the present controversy and merits reproduction, as it fortifies the petitioner’s claim and establishes his legal right over the site in question. Decree is extracted which reads as under:

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

"After contest, by Judgment, it is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, declaring that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶56

Further it is ordered and decreed that defendants, their agents, their servants are hereby restrained permanently not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and not to remove the fence around the suit schedule property i.e., trashing floor without recourse to law.

¶57

Further it is ordered and decreed that under the peculiar circumstances, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶58

SCHEDULE

¶59

"dUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸ÉÆPÉÌ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw , GdÓ¥À MqÉAiÀÄgÀ ºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ £ÀA: 201 RªÀÅ¼ÀîzÀÝPÉÌ FUÀ ¢¢ÝUÉ

¶60

UÁ æ ªÀÄ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ Rt C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀÆªÀð - ¥À²ÑªÀÄ 46 UÀd, GvÀÛgÀ - zÀQët 26 UÀd ªÀÅ¼À Rt ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄvÀÛ®Æ ªÀÄÄ¼ÀÄî, ¯ÁAmÁ£À, fÃPÀPeÁ° EgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ. EzÀÝPÉÌ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢ - ¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ - gÉÃªÀtÚ£À Rt, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ - gÁªÀÄ±ÉnÖ Rt, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ - ºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ªÀÄºÁzÉÃªÀ¥Àà£À Rt, zÀQëtPÉÌ - ºÉÆ£ÀÆßgÀÄ ¸Á© ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZËl¥Àà£À RtÚ."

¶61

This Court also finds it appropriate to extract the

¶62

relevant portion of the proceedings recorded before the Lokayukta, wherein the officials of the Gram Panchayat, including the Tahasildar and the Executive Officer, have unequivocally undertaken that the petitioner will not be

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

dispossessed from the property which forms the subject matter of the decree in O.S.No.1256/1994. This voluntary assurance, given by the concerned authorities, carries considerable weight and further supports the petitioner’s contention. Paragraph No.36 of the said proceedings is particularly relevant and reads as follows:

¶66

"It is a case where the complainant has secured a decree from the civil court. Despite the decree, the Complainant is not allowed to enjoy the property. Indeed, the allegation is that the fencing and the enclosure put up to his property has been illegally his property has been measured and sketch is prepared with an assurance that his possession will not in any manner interfered with. The Panchayat Development Officer, Executive Officer and the Tahsildar assure before this authority that they will not interfere in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the Complainant. This submission made by the parties is placed on record. In the light of the same, this complaint is closed."

¶67

8. Upon careful examination of the decree passed by

¶68

the competent civil court in O.S.No.1256/1994 which has attained finality and taking into account the subsequent

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

closure of proceedings before the Lokayukta based on the unconditional undertaking furnished by the Panchayat Development Officer, the Executive Officer, and the Tahasildar, this Court is of the considered view that the actions presently initiated by the respondent authorities

¶72

appear to be an in direct attempt to reopen and relitigate issues that have already been conclusively adjudicated. The conduct of the gram panchayat officials and other government authorities, in issuing unilateral directions to remove the petitioner from the property covered under the decree, raises a serious apprehension that they are now seeking to undermine the binding effect of the civil court judgment by administrative means.

¶73

If, as alleged, the respondent officials genuinely apprehend that the petitioner has encroached upon a portion of the land belonging to the government school, such a claim must be substantiated through a lawful and transparent process. This necessarily entails conducting a detailed and scientifically accurate survey by competent

¶74

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

revenue authorities, after providing due notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The principles of natural justice must be scrupulously followed before arriving at any conclusion adversely affecting the petitioner's rights.

¶77

However, this Court deems it necessary to emphasize that such a survey cannot be used as a pretext to dispossess the petitioner from the property which has already been the subject of a civil court decree, where he has been declared as the absolute owner and is found to be in lawful possession. The decree continues to operate as a binding adjudication and is further reinforced by an injunction restraining the gram panchayat officials from interfering with the petitioner’s possession. Therefore, any attempt to dispossess the petitioner without recourse to due process and in defiance of the decree would amount to a gross abuse of power and a violation of the rule of law.

¶78

12 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

For the foregoing reasons this Court passes the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶84

ii. The impugned order dated 14.11.2022 issued by respondents No.6 and 7, as evidenced at Annexure-A, is quashed and set aside.

¶85

iii. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the Deputy Commissioner or any other competent authority from taking appropriate measures to safeguard and prevent encroachment upon the open space abutting the government school. Nevertheless, any such action shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and after issuing prior notice to affected parties.

¶86

iv. It is further clarified that under the guise of conducting a survey or implementing administrative directions, neither the Tahasildar nor the Panchayat Development Officer of the Gram Panchayat shall interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and

¶87

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:27827 WP No. 24891 of 2022

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

enjoyment of the property that is the subject matter of the decree passed in O.S.No.1256/1994, wherein the petitioner has been declared as the absolute owner and is protected by an injunction against dispossession.

¶90

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK

¶92

HDK

Mr.Megharaj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Megharaj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Manju G Gowda Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Late Sri. S P Francis Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt. Mary Francis Vs Sri.Hari

Mathrushree Mutyalaya Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

Smt R Indrani Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Sri. C. Shakir Abdul Haq Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Cherubs Trust Vs the State of Karnataka