2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24092

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K Singh, T.M. Nadaf, JJ
C Parimala – Appellant
Versus
Tahasildar – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1531 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1611 OF 2024|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1660 OF 2024

Revenue authorities lose jurisdiction to conduct eviction or encroachment proceedings under the state land revenue act once lands are incorporated into municipal limits, as control vests in the municipal body. Furthermore, disputes involving competing claims of title and possession must be resolved through a full-fledged civil trial.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 192A - Constitution of India - Article 30A - Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities vis-a-vis Municipal Corporation - Upon inclusion of land within the limits of a Municipal Corporation, the nature and classification of land use continues to be governed by revenue laws unless duly converted - However, municipal control over building activity vests with the local municipal body - Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Land Revenue Act in respect of lands already brought under the municipal administrative control, even if they remain recorded as agricultural land. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact - Scope and ambit - Where the relief claimed involves determination of title and possession of immovable property and such issues are currently pending in civil suits before competent courts, the High Court under Article 226 cannot substitute its findings for that of the trial courts - Parties should be relegated to a full-fledged civil trial to avoid parallel proceedings. (Paras 5, 16)

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging notices issued by revenue authorities for the removal of alleged encroachments on lands, citing provisions of the state land revenue act. Some petitioners sought the implementation of these notices while others challenged them, asserting the lands fell within the municipal jurisdiction and that the revenue authorities lacked the mandate to initiate such proceedings. The writ court partly allowed the petitions by directing the implementation of the notices in one instance while relegating others to civil courts.

Findings of Court:
The court clarified that while the inclusion of land within municipal limits does not automatically change its legal classification from agricultural, it does shift regulatory control over building activity to the municipal authority. Since the municipal body is empowered under its own governing act to address unauthorized construction, the revenue authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction by initiating proceedings under the land revenue act. Given the existence of pending civil litigation regarding title, the appropriate forum for resolution is the civil court.

Issues: Whether revenue authorities retain jurisdiction to initiate eviction or demolition proceedings under the state land revenue act once the land has been incorporated into the limits of a municipal corporation, and whether such disputes can be determined via writ jurisdiction when competing titles are pending before civil courts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative inclusion in municipal limits vests regulatory powers regarding unauthorized structures in the municipal authority. Furthermore, where substantive questions of title and possession are subject to ongoing civil litigation, writ petitions should not be used as a substitute for trial in a competent civil court.

Result: Writ appeals disposed of; the order of the writ court modified to hold that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to proceed under said act, with liberty to parties to pursue rights in pending civil suits and direction to the municipal body to exercise its statutory powers against unauthorized structures.