IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 32219 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.H.N.RAMESHA S/O. H.K.NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SRI. H. N. VENKATESHA S/O. H.K.NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/AT HALAGERE VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK-571106.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Karnataka REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE. 570 005. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUNSUR SUB DIVISION, HUNSUR-571 105.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, HUNSUR TALUK, HUNSUR-571 105.

5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, NILAVAGILU CIRCLE, HUNSUR TALUK-571 105.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. AZRA.J, DUNDGE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 22.11.24 ON IA NO.5 IN OS NO. 214/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents.

2. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is heard for final disposal.

3. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.

214/2010, challenging the order dated 22.11.2014 passed on I.A. No. 5, which is pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur.

4. The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, injunction and other consequential reliefs against the respondents. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The evidence of defendant No. 4 – Tahasildar was also recorded. At that stage, defendant No. 4 – Tahasildar filed an application under Section 22 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), seeking transfer of the suit to the Special Court constituted under the said Act. The Trial Court, by the impugned order and with reference to Section 10-A of the Act, allowed the said application and ordered transfer of the suit to the Special Court.

5. Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the land in question was originally granted as a darkasth in the year 1946–1947. Thereafter, the relevant records have been maintained in the office of respondent No. 4 – Tahasildar.

5.1 It is further submitted that the land was the subject matter of proceedings under the tenancy laws, and occupancy rights were granted on 08.09.1997 in favour of H.S. Boregowda. Upon the death of H.S. Boregowda, mutation entries were effected under M.R. No.3/2002-03 in favour of his wife, H.K. Parvathamma.

5.2 Learned counsel submits that the petitioners purchased the land in question from H.K. Parvathamma and her children under a registered sale deed dated 10.07.2003, and consequential mutation entries were thereafter effected in their favour. It is contended that these aspects have been admitted by respondent No. 4 – Tahasildar in the course of cross-

examination.

5.3 Learned counsel submits that the petitioners claim title to the property under registered sale deeds executed by their vendors, who had acquired rights pursuant to the grant of occupancy rights by the competent authority under the tenancy laws. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the land in question falls within the ambit of “land grabbing” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.

6. Smt. Azra J. Dundge, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the land in question is a lake and that the petitioners have no valid title thereto. It is further submitted that once a person is found to b