IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 25505 OF 2018 (KLGP)

BETWEEN:

K.M SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O VENKATAPPA, EX.T.M.C.MEMBER, HEMAVATHI ROAD, ANDANAIAH EXTENSION, KUNIGAL-572 130 TUMAKURU DISTRICT …PETITIONER Digitally signed (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-573 141.

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-573 141.

5. TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-573 141.

6. CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-573 141.

7. SECRETARY SHALIM SHAN KHADRI MAKAN, KUNIGAL-572 130 TUMAKUR DISTRICT

8. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD & WAQF DARUL AUQAF, 06 CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052 REP. BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.R. ARUNA, AGA FOR R1-R5, SRI. Y.D. SHIVASHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R6, SMT. RASHI SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHAHBAAZ HUSAIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7, SMT. SABAHATH SULTANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, BENGALURU IN L.G.C.(P) NO.277/2018 ORDER DTD 29.05.2018 VIDE ANNX-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present Writ Appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Special Court, Bengaluru (for brevity "the Special Court") in LGC (P) No.277/2018. The Special Court has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/petitioner and thus refused to take cognizance on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9(1) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 in respect of the alleged encroachment by respondent No.7 of Government land measuring 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No.95 of Kasaba village, Kunigal and alleged illegal construction.

3. The learned Special Court, on documentary evidence produced by the complainant/petitioner, has not given any finding on the evidence, but on the basis of the arguments, has been of the opinion that respondent No.7 is not the land grabber. However, the liberty was given to the petitioner/complainant that if he was of the opinion that the land was not a Waqf property, he would be at liberty to obtain adjudication on the same in proper Court.

4. We have perused the impugned order.

5. The minimum what was required from the Special Court was to advert to the voluminous evidence produced by the complainant. Not even iota of consideration has been given to the voluminous record/evidence produced by the complainant in support of his case that respondent No.7 was a land grabber, and he had encroached upon the Government land to an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No.95 of Kasaba Village, Kunigal, which according to the petitioner, is a 'B'

kharab Government land.

6. We failed to understand that how the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that respondent No.7 is not a land grabber without adverting to the evidence produced by the petitioner/complainant.

7. This Court vide order dated 08.01.2020 directed the Assistant Commissioner to make enquiries/investigation about the allegation of land grabbing by respondent No.7 and submit a report. In compliance of the said order, a report dated 10.01.2020 has been submitted by the Government before this Court on 13.01.2020. Considering the said report also, we are of the opinion that the matter requires trial and the lea