Umapathi S Vs the State of Karnataka

UMAPATHI S S/O LATE M SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ADVOCATE LEX GROUP NO.40, SNS PLAZA SHIVANANDA CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001 PAN AAQPU4590H AADHAAR NO.726238762844 PHONE 9480017995 EMAIL umapathi@ lexgroup.in

¶12

(BY SRI. UMAPATHI S, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:16454-DB WP No. 27594 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-56001

¶20

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURTS III FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2022 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.30/2022) VIDE ITS GAZETTE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.DPAL 20 SHASHANA 2022, BENGALURU DATED 13/10/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16454-DB WP No. 27594 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

The petitioner has filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia, impugning the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2022. The petitioner states that by virtue of the said legislative amendment, the definition of land is considerably narrowed down to exclude within its scope the lands falling in rural areas. He submits that the definition of 'land' is confined to lands, which fall within the municipal limits.

¶31

The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that by virtue of the said amendment more than seven thousand cases, which are pending before the Special Court would stand abated. He contends that there is no intelligible differentia between lands falling in rural areas and lands falling in urban areas as far as object of the legislation, the Karnataka Land Grabbing Act, 2011, is concerned.

¶32

We note that there is no challenge as to the legislative competence to enact the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2022. The contention that there is no distinction

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16454-DB WP No. 27594 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

between the lands falling in rural areas and urban areas is ex facie unmerited. The legislature in its wisdom has considered it apposite to restrict the scope of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 to lands as defined under the Act.

¶36

The contention that the exclusion of rural lands would legitimise encroachment in rural area is also erroneous as recourse to other laws is not foreclosed.

¶37