Possession of land based on valid sale deeds does not constitute land grabbing under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, and the Special Court must consider the legality of such possession before proceeding with complaints.

JUDGMENT

G.NARENDAR, J. -

Heard Sri.Uday Holla, learned senior counsel along with Sri.Chandan K., learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. This writ petition was listed on 11/8/2023 and this bench taking note of the limited nature of the issue that was required to be addressed by this Court, directed the learned AGA to secure instructions and adjourned the matter to 16/8/2023 and on request it was adjourned to today.

3. Today the learned senior counsel would submit that the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Special Court') issued a warrant in view of the petitioners' omission to put in an appearance before the Special Court.

4. The petitioners are before this Court in a very peculiar circumstance. The land, which they claim title over, is alleged to be a land belonging to the Forest Department which resulted in the Department filing a suit for permanent injunction which came to be dismissed and the appeal also came to be rejected and the Special Leave Appeal came to be partly allowed and the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to remand the matter back to the trial Court for a decision afresh after affording due opportunity of leading evidence to the appellant and the Hon'ble Apex Court, being conscious of the age of the proceedings, has even proceeded further and directed expeditious consideration and that too within a period of one year.

5. In essence, the suit is one for assertion of the plaintiff's/petitioner herein's title which they premise on a registered conveyance deed of the year 1977-78, which are produced as Annexure-H series. If that be the position, then the moot question that would arise for consideration is whether the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short, 'the Act of 2011') gets attracted. For a better appreciation of the issue, we delve into the definition of the act of Land Grabbing as defined under clause (f) of Sec. 2 of the Act of 2011. Land Grabbing is defined as under:

2(f) "land grabbing" means every activity of grabbing of any land, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and license basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorized structures; and the term "to grab land" shall be construed accordingly."

6. Every activity which enables a person to take possession of land [land as defined under the Act] without there being a lawful entitlement, is defined as an act of grabbing of land. Attempts to enable taking of possession through fictitious and illegal arrangements like tenancy, lease, construction of unauthorized structures are also to be construed as acts amounting to grabbing of land. Thus, on a plain reading of the definition, it is apparent that attempts by any person to illegally take possession of land either directly or indirectly and without there being any legal entitlement is construed as an act of land grabbing.

7. In the case on hand, the possession of the land prima-facie is not without a legal entitlement. The sale deeds are of the year 1977 and have acquired some legal sanctity under the relevant laws since 1981 and it is needless to say that they would enable the Courts of law to draw a presumption unless rebutted or negated by appropriate material. The petitioners' possession is traceable under the covenants of the sale deed, more particularly the unnumbered paragraph on page No.6 of the sale deed dtd. 19/8/1977. The said sale in favour of the petitioners has been preceded by four earlier sale deeds and an order of grant by the State. Thus, we are of the prima-facie opinion that the possession of the petitioners even assuming for argument sake that the lands are indeed lands of the forest, the same would not const