Sri S M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:449 WP No. 2892 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2892 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. S.M. ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE D. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.197, DASARA BEEDHI, KANAKA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, SARJAPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 125, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SESHAGIRI K.T, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 107, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶14

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SARJAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SARJAPURA, SARJAPURA HOBLI,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:449 WP No. 2892 of 2024

¶17

ANEKAL TALUK - 562 125, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SUB DIVISION, NO.14/3, 4TH FLOOR, C.F.C. BUILDING, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA K, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SARJAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MADE ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.08.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus

¶25

against respondent No.3 to implement the order of the Deputy Commissioner made on the representation dated

¶26

16.08.2023 vide Annexure-F. A mandamus is also sought

¶27

against respondent No.2-Tahsildar to assure that there are

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:449 WP No. 2892 of 2024

¶30

no illegal encroachments on the government land to an extent of 10 guntas, which is attached to land bearing Sy.No.312/1, in terms of communication issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-D.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3. Perused the records.

¶32

The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land situated in Survey No. 312/1. Within the same survey number, a portion of land measuring 10 guntas is owned

¶33

by the gram panchayath, and this particular portion is strategically located adjacent to the State Highway. The petitioner, concerned about potential misuse or unauthorized encroachment of the said land belonging to the gram panchayath, lodged a formal complaint with the Deputy Commissioner and the jurisdictional Tahsildar. Acting upon the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement on the said complaint, specifically directing

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:449 WP No. 2892 of 2024

¶36

respondent No. 3, the gram panchayath, to ensure that no illegal encroachments occur on the 10 guntas of land owned by the State/Local Authority. Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner directed respondent No. 3 to take appropriate measures to prevent any unauthorized activity or misuse of this land. Further, the Executive Engineer also issued a communication to the Tahsildar, emphasizing the necessity of safeguarding the land against encroachments and unauthorized construction, including the installation of sheds by the residents of Sarjapura village.

¶37

Despite these directives, issued as early as

¶38

August 2023, respondent No. 3, the gram panchayath, has failed to take any visible action to address the concerns

¶39

raised in the petition. Notices have been duly served to respondent No. 3, and legal counsel has been engaged by the gram panchayath in this matter. However, there has been no concrete response or positive assertion from respondent No. 3 either refuting the allegations of

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:449 WP No. 2892 of 2024

¶42

encroachment or providing an update on measures taken to maintain the integrity of the 10 guntas of land. Furthermore, respondent No. 3 has not submitted any definitive statement affirming its exclusive possession of the said land or clarifying whether it intends to permit its unauthorized use by the residents of Sarjapura village. The continued silence and inaction on the part of respondent No. 3 raise serious concerns about the effective enforcement of the directives issued by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶43

In light of the absence of any concrete steps or rebuttal from respondent No. 3 and the compelling need to protect public land from unauthorized encroachment, this Court finds it necessary to issue appropriate directions. Respondent No. 3, the gram panchayath, is bound to strictly adhere to the instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District. Respondent No. 3 is further bound to ensure that the 10 guntas of land owned by the gram panchayath remain free from any form

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:449 WP No. 2892 of 2024

¶46

of illegal encroachment or unauthorized use. Any attempt to let out the land to residents or permit its unauthorized use shall be immediately curtailed, and respondent No. 3 shall take all requisite measures to safeguard the land in accordance with the law. The gram panchayath is reminded of its duty to act promptly and transparently in compliance with the directives issued by competent authorities to prevent any potential misuse of public property.

¶47

For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes

¶48

the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i . The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶51

ii. Respondent No. 3, the gram panchayath, is directed to immediately take all necessary and effective measures to ensure that the land in question, specifically 10 guntas in Survey No. 312/1 (part of the total area measuring 5 acres and 24 guntas), is not encroached upon by residents or any third parties.

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:449 WP No. 2892 of 2024

¶54

iii. Respondent No. 3 shall maintain strict vigilance and ensure that no encroachments are allowed on the subject land measuring 10 guntas under any circumstances.

¶55

iv. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to initiate and conduct appropriate proceedings to safeguard the subject land and submit a compliance report detailing the actions taken to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶56

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶57

HDK

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Sri S M Anjinappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S M Anjinappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Sri Gurumurthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Vijay Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Basappa Vs State of Karnataka

Girish Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha T v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Somanna Vs State of Karnataka