Shri G v Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

R

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 7926 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 7424 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 8095 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 8543 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 8549 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶8

W.P.No.7926/2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SHRI. G.V. MANJUNATH S/O VEERANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. SITE NO. 7 AND 8 4TH CROSS RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY BASAVANAGARA, 4TH CROSS B-SECTOR, BENGALURU-560037.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.

¶15

2

¶16

2 . THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KR PURAM DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE BENGALURU- 560036.

¶17

3 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶18

..RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.V. BATHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/23/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶21

W.P.No. 7424/2025

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

1 . SMT. TAMIL ARASI W/O SATHYAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.22/A RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY BASAVANAGARA 4TH CROSS B-SECTOR BENGALURU-560037.

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶26

3

¶27

AND:

¶28

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.

¶29

2 . THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KR PURAM DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE BENGALURU- 560036.

¶30

3 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶31

..RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.R. JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE NO. BBMP/KA.PA.AA/KRPURA/39/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶34

W.P.No.8095/2025

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

1 . SMT. PALANIAMMAL RAJA W/O R. RAJA

¶37

4

¶38

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.31, 6^TH CROSS OPP. TATA SHERWOOD ROAD RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY BASAVANAGARA B-SECTOR BENGALURU-560037.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.

¶43

2 . THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KR PURAM DIVISION MAHADEVAPURA RANGE BENGALURU- 560036.

¶44

3 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶45

..RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶47

5

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/21/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶49

W.P.No.8543/2025

¶50

BETWEEN:

¶51

1 . SHRI. N. SUNDARA MURTHY S/O L.P. NAMBIAPPAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SITE NO.21/A, B SECTOR RAMAIAHREDDY COLONY BASAVANAGARA BENGALURU-560037.

¶52

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.

¶55

2 . THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KR PURAM DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE BENGALURU- 560036.

¶56

6

¶57

3 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560002.

¶58

..RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/37/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶61

W.P.No.8549/2025

¶62

BETWEEN:

¶63

1 . SHRI. SHIVARAMAN .J S/O R. JAGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.49, 4^TH CROSS B SECTOR, RAMAIAHREDDY COLONY BASAVANAGARA MARATHALLI POST BENGALURU-560037.

¶64

...PETITIONER

¶65

(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶66

AND:

¶67

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶68

7

¶69

M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.

¶70

2 . THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KR PURAM DIVISION MAHADEVAPURA RANGE BENGALURU- 560036.

¶71

3 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶72

...RESPONDENTS

¶73

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶74

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/29/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶75

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶76

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶77

8

¶78

C.A.V. ORDER

¶79

Since common issue is involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.

¶80

This petition is filed assailing the show cause notice dated 29.11.2024 issued by a competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act, (for short "Act, 2014").

¶81

The petitioners claim ownership over a residential properties forming part of Sy.No.158/2AB of Vibhuthipura Village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. In support of their claim, the petitioners rely on registered sale deeds, produced at Annexure-A to the writ petitions. Photographs evidencing the construction of residential houses have been submitted. To further substantiate possession and ownership, the petitioners have produced the Katha certificate, showing the petitioners' name

¶82

9

¶83

recorded in the BBMP property register, along with tax paid receipts.

¶84

Based on a complaint lodged by the Tahsildar, the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force Police registered an FIR in Crime No.129/2013 under Sections 192A and 192B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Consequent to the constitution of a Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short "Act, 2011"), the matters now stand transferred to the jurisdiction of the said Special Court.

¶85

In light of the above circumstances, the petitioners have challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 29.11.2024, issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-E). The core grievance is that the matter is sub judice before the Special Court constituted under the Act, 2011, and therefore, the initiation of parallel proceedings under the Act, 2014 is legally unsustainable.

¶86

10

¶87

Learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly

¶88

urged that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Act, 2014 are impermissible in view of the pending criminal proceedings before the Special Court. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.20428/2022, wherein similar notices issued by the Tahsildar were quashed on the ground that the matter was pending before the Land Grabbing Court.

¶89

In response, learned counsel for the BBMP contends that respondent No.2, being the Prescribed Officer under the Act, 2014, is statutorily empowered under Section 22 to initiate action for eviction of unauthorized occupants from tank land. Refuting the petitioners' reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision, the BBMP's counsel cites the second proviso to Section 9(7) of the Act, 2011, and further invokes Section 25 of the Act, 2014. It is argued that the Act mandates the Prescribed

¶90

11

¶91

Officer to report and remove encroachments from tank lands, and any failure to discharge this obligation attracts penal consequences under Section 25 of the Act, 2014.

¶92

I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Upon examination of the statutory framework under both the Act, 2014 and the Act, 2011, this Court finds it appropriate to address the interplay between these enactments.

¶93

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Section 16 of the Act, 2011 provides that its provisions shall prevail in the event of any inconsistency with other laws. The overriding effect of the Act, 2011 is thus statutorily recognized. Section 16 of the Act, 2011 reads as under:

¶94

" 16. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority."

¶95

12

¶96

Similarly, Section 47 of the Act, 2014 deals with the effect of the Act on other laws. In order to appreciate the legislative intent and the interplay between the two statutes, it is necessary to extract Section 47 of the Act, 2014, which reads as under:

¶97

" 47. Effect of other laws.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act.

¶98

(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from being prosecuted and punished under any other law for the time being in force for any act of omission, which also constitutes an offence under this Act, or from being liable under such other law to any higher punishment or penalty other than that provided in this Act or the rules made thereunder:

¶99

Provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence."

¶100

This Court also deems it fit to cull out the second

¶101

proviso to Sub-Section (7) of Section 9 of the Act, 2011, which reads as under:

"2(7) - xxxx

13

xxxx

Provided further that where the custodian of evacuee property objects to the Special Court taking cognizance of the case, the Special Court shall not proceed further with the case in regard to such property:

¶106

Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a notice of taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary enquiry to satisfy itself about the persons likely to be interested in the land."

¶107

(Emphasis Supplied by me)

¶108

On a careful analysis of the second proviso to

¶109

Sub-Section (9) of Section 7 of the Act, 2011, which has been extracted above, this Court is of the considered view that despite both enactments namely, the Act of 2011 and the Act of 2014 containing non obstante clauses, the said second proviso carves out a clear legislative intent to permit parallel remedial action under any other law even when proceedings are initiated under the Act, 2011. In that context, Section 47 of the Act, 2014 assumes relevance. It

¶110

also contains a non obstante clause and states in unequivocal terms that the provisions of the Act, 2014 shall

¶111

14

¶112

have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force.

¶113

Thus, in view of the second proviso to Section 7(9) of the Act, 2011, read with Section 47 of the Act, 2014, this Court finds that the Prescribed Officer, i.e., respondent No.2, duly appointed under the provisions of the Act, 2014, is legally empowered to initiate an independent enquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of tank land. If, after conducting such enquiry and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, it is found that the petitioner has indeed encroached upon tank land, respondent No.2, being the competent statutory authority, is well within his powers to proceed to summarily evict the petitioner in accordance with Section 22 of the Act, 2014.

¶114

Furthermore, the legislative framework under the Act, 2014 ensures adequate checks and balances.

¶115

15

¶116

Section 25 of the said Act specifically provides that if the Prescribed Officer is found to have failed in discharging his duties or has acted in dereliction thereof, he shall be liable to departmental enquiry and may also be subjected to a monetary penalty of Rs.10,000/-. This provision reinforces that the authority entrusted with such powers is not left unchecked and is answerable for omissions and commissions while discharging his responsibilities.

¶117

In the above context, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.20428/2022, heavily relied upon by the petitioners, does not assist the petitioners' case. Notably, the Co-ordinate Bench, in that case, appears to have not examined the second proviso to Section 7(9) of the Act, 2011, which expressly enables authorities to take action under other enactments notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings before the Special Court. It is also evident from the facts of that case that the action therein was initiated

¶118

16

¶119

by the Tahsildar under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In contrast, the present proceedings are not under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act but are initiated by the Prescribed Officer under the Act, 2014, which provides for a distinct remedial mechanism. Hence, the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the cited judgment is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of the present cases.

¶120

Although the petitioners have contended that the Act, 2011 alone governs the dispute and that proceedings under any other statute are barred due to the matter being sub judice before the Special Court, such an interpretation does not hold merit. It is true that Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 2011 provide for penal consequences for land grabbing, including prosecution and punishment. However, the Act, 2011 does not expressly provide a mechanism for summary eviction of unauthorized occupants from the encroached land. The process is criminal in nature

¶121

17

¶122

and ends with adjudication of land grabbing and conviction, but no express procedural remedy is contemplated for immediate or administrative removal of encroachments.

¶123

Conversely, the Act, 2014, particularly under Section 22 of the Act, 2014, provides a comprehensive remedial procedure that empowers the Prescribed Officer to summarily evict any person found to be in unauthorized occupation of tank land, thereby enabling swift and effective conservation of public tank resources.

¶124

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioners' argument that the pendency of proceedings before the Special Court under the Act, 2011 renders the present proceedings under the Act, 2014 sub judice is both misconceived and untenable. The statutory scheme, especially in light of the second proviso to Section 7(9) of the Act, 2011, explicitly permits

¶125

18

¶126

proceedings under other enactments. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings by respondent No.2 under the Act, 2014 is perfectly within the bounds of law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶127

For the reasons stated supra, this Court

¶128

proceeds to pass the following:

¶129

ORDER

¶130

The writ petitions are dismissed .

¶131

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶132

ALB

Shri G v. Manjunath v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri G v. Manjunath v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Sri Pichandi R Vs State of Karnataka

A G Shivakumar Since Dead by His Legal Heirs Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumantharayappa Vs the State of Karnataka