The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs the Registrar

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INTERIM PRAYER FOR THE OFFICE OBJECTIONS TO BE COMPLIED WITH. PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTING THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:47571-DB WP No. 6556 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

LAND GRABING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, BANGALORE IN LGC (S) No. 88 OF 2023 FROM ISSUING ANY ORDERS/DIRECTIONS TO THE PETITIONER IN FILING THE COMPLAINTS UNDER FORM No.1 AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF STORM WATER DRAINS (ANNEXURE-A) DATED 08.04.2024 DATED 08.04.2024 TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CORPORATION IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶26

& HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

Sri S.H. Prashant, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BBMP, submits that the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bangalore, is contrary to the express provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, and warrants interference.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47571-DB WP No. 6556 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Before addressing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to note the relevant facts. Based on newspaper reports, the Land Grabbing Court took suo motu cognizance of alleged encroachments in Survey Nos. 112 and 114 of Doddakannalli Village, Varthur Hobli; Survey Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22 of Kariyammana Agrahara Village; Survey Nos. 129 and 130 of Channasandra Village, Bidarhalli Hobli; and various other locations.

¶33

Reports suggested that surveys of the aforesaid lands were not conducted properly due to the influence of persons involved in encroaching upon

¶34

government/authority land. The reports referred to specific individuals and the extent of encroachment. By order dated 23.05.2023, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP Mahadevapura Zone, was directed to get a joint survey conducted.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47571-DB WP No. 6556 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The order sheet of the Land Grabbing Court

¶38

indicate that due to delays and resistance, the Court directed the Executive Engineer, Storm Water Drain, BBMP, to file a report. Vide order dated 09.08.2024, the Court issued a bailable warrant of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the said Executive Engineer for non-compliance. Subsequently, an Assistant Executive Engineer remained present and filed a report dated 09.08.2024, which identified encroachers in Survey Nos. 77 and 156 of Varthur Village and Survey Nos. 66, 72, 98, and 99 of Kumbena Agrahara Village.

¶39

In light of this report, the Executive Engineer was directed to file cases in Form No. 1, along with relevant documents, within 30 days from 03.10.2024. This direction was issued on 09.08.2024. The BBMP has approached this Court with the present writ petition only after a significant delay of one year.

¶40

Learned counsel for the BBMP contends that the

¶41

Executive Engineer is not authorized to file cases of land

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47571-DB WP No. 6556 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

grabbing under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, and its regulations. He submits that only a Tahsildar, as per Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, is empowered to initiate such proceedings.

¶45

It is necessary to examine this contention in

¶46

light of the statutory provisions. Sections 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, are relevant:

¶47

“Section 8: Authorization of Officers This section authorizes the Government to appoint, by notification, an officer not below the rank of Tahsildar to be responsible for the Act's administration and to initiate legal action for violations in a specified area.

¶48

Section 9: Procedure and Powers of the Special Courts

¶49

This section empowers the Special Court to: i. Initiate proceedings suo motu or on an application, and adjudicate matters of ownership, title, or possession. ii. Determine the order of civil and criminal liability proceedings.

¶50

iii. Use evidence from criminal proceedings in civil trials. iv. Exercise jurisdiction based on the land's location. v. Presume an individual to be a land-grabber if the land is prima facie government-owned, shifting the burden of

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47571-DB WP No. 6556 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

proof.

¶54

vi. Possess the powers of both a Civil Court and a Court of Sessions.

¶55

vii. Review its judgments or orders to correct errors and prevent injustice.”

¶56

A consideration of Section 8 reveals that it

¶57

pertains to the State Government authorizing its own

¶58

officer. The BBMP is not the State Government; it is an authority constituted by it. Therefore, Section 8, concerning the appointment of a Tahsildar by the State Government, is not directly applicable to the BBMP.

¶59

Conversely, Section 9 empowers the Special Court itself to take suo motu cognizance. Further, it allows

¶60

"any person" to file a complaint. The term "person" is defined broadly under Section 2(i) of the Act to include any individual, company, or group. The Executive Engineer of the BBMP undoubtedly falls within this wide definition and is competent to file a complaint based on the report of encroachment.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47571-DB WP No. 6556 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

The conduct of the BBMP throughout the proceedings before the Land Grabbing Court is

¶64

reprehensible and is deprecated. Cognizance was taken as far back as 2023. Several orders were passed directing the submission of reports. Ultimately, on 09.08.2024, the Court directed the Executive Engineer to file cases based on his own report. Instead of complying, the BBMP has filed this writ petition after an inordinate delay of one year and three months.

¶65

We have considered the submissions and find

¶66

no merit in the contentions. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶67

The Executive Engineer, Storm Water Drain, BBMP Mahadevapura Zone, is directed to file cases in Form No. 1, based on the report submitted on 09.08.2024, before the Special Court within three months from today.

¶68

Failing compliance, the Land Grabbing Court may initiate appropriate action against the Executive

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:47571-DB WP No. 6556 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Engineer for disobedience of its orders. Furthermore, departmental proceedings shall be instituted against him for dereliction of duty and for acting in a manner that protects encroachers.

¶73

Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶74

(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶75

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

¶76

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶77

TIN

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike v. the Registrar

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sri. Manian

Abhyudaya Educational Trust Vs B. K. Gowda

Smt Yellamma Vs Sri R Ajitchand Jain

Sri. B. Murugesh Vs Sri. J. Krishna Kumar

Director and Dean Vs M/S Global Computers

The Management of Vs H B Biradar