Back
Stays Government Probe Into Alleged Land By Vidya Peeth
The , presided over by Justice E.S. Indiresh, has issued an staying a government directive that initiated a inquiry into alleged land encroachments by the . The court’s intervention underscores the necessity of adherence to in administrative actions concerning property boundaries.
Case Background and Procedural Genesis
The dispute arises from a government order issued on , which established an 11-member SIT, led by IAS officer Amlan Aditya Biswas, to investigate allegations of on government land, including areas reserved for public grazing and stormwater drains in Kaggalipura village. The SIT was formed in response to a petition filed by citizens Chandrashekar N, Mahesha B, and Muniraju S. The government alleged that the Trust had constructed structures beyond its leased boundaries in specific survey numbers. The Trust, however, disputes these claims, asserting that it has been the target of malicious intent and noting that a previous survey did not substantiate the claims of .
Arguments from the Parties
The petitioner, represented by , contended that the government order was issued without legal foundation, specifically noting the absence of a . Relying on an order passed in a previous , the petitioner argued that the authorities could not unilaterally conclude that an had occurred without conducting a in the presence of the concerned party.
Conversely, the state argued that the impugned order was a direct consequence of the court's earlier mandates regarding the protection of public land. The government maintained that the committee was necessary to verify land grant documents and determine the extent of unauthorized construction.
Legal Analysis and Observations
The High Court’s ruling focused heavily on the procedural requirements mandated by the . Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that the state cannot bypass the requirement of a when determining boundaries and identifying potential encroachments. The court highlighted that administrative action against a party must follow the established legal procedure to ensure fairness and transparency.
Key Observations:
*
"It is also well settled principle in law that if any acquisition has been made against any person much less the petitioner herein as to the
of the land belonging to the Government, under such circumstances, the
has to be conducted in the presence of the persons aggrieved."
*
"It is also to be noted that in order to identify the land belonging to the petitioner and fix the boundaries so also
, if any be made by the petitioner and same has to be done only following the procedure contemplated under the
."
*
"It appears from the impugned order at Annexure- C that, said process/procedure has not been followed by the respondent-authorities."
Court’s Decision and Future Implications
The court granted interim relief to the by staying the operation of the , order until the next date of hearing, scheduled for . This ruling emphasizes that government agencies must strictly comply with statutory survey procedures before accusing entities of land . By mandating a participatory survey process, the High Court has reaffirmed the protection of due process, effectively pausing the SIT probe and requiring the authorities to revisit the procedural validity of their investigation.
