Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASHING ANNX-A NO. JA.GRA. GRA. PAM.30/2026-27 DATED 19.05.2026 DIRECTED TO THE PETITIONER TO EVICT FROM THE HOUSE ON OR BEFORE 25.05.2026 FAILING WHICH FORCEFULLY EVICT AND DEMOLITION

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26459 WP No. 16149 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ON 26.05.2026 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. 44/1/2 MEASURING 28X33 SQFT SITUATED AT INDRASANHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TAKUL AND PROPERTY BOUNDED ON EAST BY POOHAPPA PROPERTY WEST BY, MANHAMMA PROPERTY NORTH BY DRAINAGE SOUTH BY ROAD BY ALLOWING WP. THE RESPONDENT NO.5 HAS ISSUED THE EVICTION NOTICE DATED 19.05.2026 VIDE ANNXA.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner asserts ownership of an

¶35

immovable property measuring 28 x 33 square feet within the limits of Indrasanhalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk asserting that she has constructed a residential house there. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fifth respondent's order dated 19.05.2026 [ Annexure-A ], and the fifth respondent has directed demolition of the construction in the

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26459 WP No. 16149 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

property claimed by the petitioner observing that once the property is demolished, a report would be filed with the office of the Upa-lokayukta.

¶39

Sri Chokkareddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, calls in question the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 emphasizing that the fifth respondent could not have assumed jurisdiction in view of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj [Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments] Rules, 2011 [for short, ‘2011 Rules’ ]. The learned counsel invites this Court’s attention to the scheme under these Rules to argue that if there is a complaint of any encroachment of a Grama Panchayat/Government property, the Panchayat Development Officer is only required to send a report to the competent authority as defined under Rule 2 (b)¹ who then shall hold an enquiry under Rule 4 with the provision for an appeal under

¶40

1. The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat or any other officer authorized by the Government.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26459 WP No. 16149 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Rule 5 with the office of the Chief Executive Officer as contemplated under Section 269 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ‘the Act’ ].

¶44

Sri Kenchegowda, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the first and second respondents, and Sri M.S. Devaraju, a learned standing counsel for the third and fifth respondents, are heard in the light of the aforesaid circumstances. Indeed Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the 2011 Rules vindicate the petitioner’s case. The Panchayat Development Officer can only file a report with the competent authority when he is of the opinion that there is encroachment of Grama Panchayat/ Government property with the competent authority being obliged under Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules to issue notice, hear both the parties and then decide on the question of encroachment/obstruction with liberty to avail remedy under Section 269 of the Act read with

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:26459 WP No. 16149 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Rule 5 of the 2011 Rules. The fifth respondent's order is inarguably without jurisdiction and therefore, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The petition is allowed-in-part and AnnexureA dated 19.05.2026 is read down to be only a report filed with the fourth respondent [ the jurisdictional Executive Officer ] as contemplated under Rule 3(3) of 2011 Rules calling upon the fourth respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and all the concerned in the prescribed

¶51

form and then decide on the controversy.

¶52

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶53

SA Ct:sr

Smt Gowramma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt Gowramma v. 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

Access Developers Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Manikam Murugeshan Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Skanda Marketers Vs State of Karnataka

Mr R Jnanesh Vs the Commissioner

Mr T Rangaswamy Vs the Commissioner

Mr Venkatesh C R Vs the Commissioner