Channabasappa H Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Channabasappa H Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both petitions allowed. W.P.No.44551/2018: the order dated 29.08.2018 in M.A.No.8/2017 is upheld insofar as remanding I.A.No.4 to the Trial Court for reconsideration, with the modification that till the Trial Court considers and passes an order on I.A.No.4 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC), the defendants shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. W.P.No.39388/2019: the order dated 09.07.2019 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.179/2016 transferring the suit to the Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 is set aside and I.A.No.6 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 is rejected. No order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could transfer O.S.No.179/2016 to the Special Court constituted under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 on the application under Section 20, and whether it was first required to record a reasoned finding that the lis involves 'land grabbing' and falls within the matters specified in Section 7(1) of the Act. +2 more

Court's answer

While upholding the Appellate Court's remand of I.A.No.4 for fresh consideration, the Court modified the position so that, until the Trial Court considers and passes an order on I.A.No.4 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the defendants shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs — extending the benefit of the co-ordinate bench order in Channabasappa H. (W.P.No.44557/2018).

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court must first ascertain whether the lis before it falls within the definition of 'land grabbing' and whether the subject matter of the suit relates to any matter specified in Section 7(1) of the Act; mechanically ordering transfer of the suit to the Special Court in the absence of such exercise is impermissible and calls for interference.

Key takeaways

Plaintiffs who specifically assert unauthorised occupation of Government land, whose prayer for regularisation remains pending before the competent authority, and whose alleged rejection of regularisation is not averred in the Tahsildar's written statement, cannot be termed land grabbers; land grabbing must be a conscious act and there must be positive action by the Authorities.ratio¶170
The Trial Court committed a grave error in concluding, merely from the plaintiffs' production of 30 documents said to establish that the land is Government land, that the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 were applicable so as to warrant transfer of the suit.ratio¶131

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), 23.07.2026 — connected writ petitions under Article 227 arising from O.S.No.179/2016 (permanent injunction suit over 4 acres in Sy.No.113, Hireshakuna Village, Soraba Taluk, Shivamogga, where part of the survey number was allotted to KSSSIDC). (1) Transfer to Special Court: the Trial Court's order on I.A.No.6 under S.20 Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 transferring the suit to the Special Court was set aside. Plaintiffs who expressly assert unauthorised occupation and seek regularisation in Form No.50 under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, with their application pending (the alleged Committee rejection of 07.04.2007 being unsupported by any averment in the Tahsildar's written statement), cannot be termed 'land grabbers'; land grabbing must be a conscious act accompanied by positive action by authorities; the Trial Court had produced no reasoned finding that the lis involves 'land grabbing' or falls within S.7(1) of the Act, and mechanical transfer on the mere written-statement defence that property is Government land is impermissible — relying on E.S. Sathish Kumar (W.P.No.23611/2019) and Gangadhar (W.P.No.35369/2018). (2) Temporary injunction: the Appellate Court's order dated 29.08.2018 in M.A.No.8/2017 setting aside the injunction and remanding for objections was upheld insofar as remand, but modified — following Channabasappa H. (W.P.No.44557/2018) — to bar interference with plaintiffs' peaceful possession till the Trial Court disposes of I.A.No.4. I.A.No.6 rejected; no costs.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two orders under challenge: (i) order dated 29.08.2018 in M.A.No.8/2017 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Appellate Court) overturning the temporary injunction granted on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.179/2016 and remanding for reconsideration, challenged in W.P.No.44551/2018; (ii) order dated 09.07.2019 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.179/2016 of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Trial Court) transferring the suit to the Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, challenged in W.P.No.39388/2019.¶84
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Appellate Court); Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Trial Court) · 29.08.2018 and 09.07.2019
Prior proceeding
Petitioners, claiming possession and cultivation of 4 acres in Sy.No.113, Hireshakuna Village, filed suit O.S.No.179/2016 seeking a decree of permanent injunction when the defendants tried to interfere with their possession.¶121
Prior proceeding
On 26.07.2017 the Trial Court allowed the plaintiffs' application (I.A.No.IV) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession till disposal of the suit. (Note: para 126 alternatively records the temporary injunction as 'granted on 27.06.2017'.)¶176
Prior proceeding
M.A.Nos.8/2017 (KSSSIDC) and 14/2017 (State) were filed against the temporary injunction; the Appellate Court set aside the injunction order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to reconsider it after permitting the defendants to file objections.¶126
Prior proceeding
Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed an application under Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 seeking transfer of the suit to the Special Court; the Trial Court allowed it in I.A.No.6 (order dated 09.07.2019) and ordered transfer of the suit to the Special Court. After remand, the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction (I.A.No.4) remained undecided.¶126
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed an application in Form No.50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation; they challenged the grant of land to KSSSIDC before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, whose dismissal of their appeal is being assailed before this Court in W.P.No.11049/2026.¶121
Prior proceeding
By way of reply, petitioners submitted that the alleged rejection of the regularisation application was never communicated; the Additional Government Advocate orally asserted rejection by the Committee on 07.04.2007, which the Court noted was not averred in the Tahsildar's written statement.¶169
Prior proceeding
Petitioners and others had earlier filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for consideration of their regularisation application; it was disposed of on 01.03.2017 with a direction to consider the application.¶114

Cite this judgement

Channabasappa H v. the State of Karnataka, WP/39388/2019 (KA), decided on 23 July 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited3

SRI.E.S.SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERSRelied on¶133
SRI.GANGADHARA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERSRelied on¶157
CHANNABASAPPA H. AND ANOTHER Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERSFollowed¶180

Open Authorities

Statutes9

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 · Section 20 · Section 7(1) · Sections 7 and 9
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964Chapter XIV-A · Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 · Form No.50
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2

View all statutes

Procedural history8

Two orders under challenge: (i) order dated 29.08.2018 in M.A.No.8/2017 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Appellate Court) overturning the temporary injunction granted on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.179/2016 and remanding for reconsideration, challenged in W.P.No.44551/2018; (ii) order dated 09.07.2019 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.179/2016 of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Trial Court) transferring the suit to the Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, challenged in W.P.No.39388/2019.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Appellate Court); Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba (Trial Court) · 29.08.2018 and 09.07.2019
Petitioners, claiming possession and cultivation of 4 acres in Sy.No.113, Hireshakuna Village, filed suit O.S.No.179/2016 seeking a decree of permanent injunction when the defendants tried to interfere with their possession.
On 26.07.2017 the Trial Court allowed the plaintiffs' application (I.A.No.IV) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession till disposal of the suit. (Note: para 126 alternatively records the temporary injunction as 'granted on 27.06.2017'.)

View full history

Bench / Coram

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

Parties & counsel