Back
Karnataka High Court Stays Special Investigation Team Probe Against Ved Vignan Maha Vidya Peeth
The has granted an interim stay on a government order issued on , which established a to probe allegations of large-scale land encroachment against the , an entity associated with the . The bench, presided over by Justice E.S. Indiresh, questioned the procedural integrity of the government's decision to bypass mandatory survey requirements.
Procedural Lapses in Encroachment Allegations
The dispute centers on allegations that the trust had encroached upon government land in Survey No. 46 and surrounding areas of Kaggalipura village. The state government’s decision to form an SIT followed a report by Regional Commissioner Amlan Aditya Biswas, which alleged encroachment.
However, the petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel , contended that the state lacked the legal jurisdiction to form an SIT under the , or the . The trust argued that the government failed to follow the , specifically noting that no joint survey was conducted in the presence of the trust’s representatives, as required to fix boundaries and verify encroachment claims.
Arguments from the Bar
The petitioner highlighted that they had previously submitted applications for boundary demarcation—a process known as and —which remained pending before the revenue authorities. They argued that the government could not preemptively label the trust an encroacher without completing these foundational administrative steps.
Conversely, the State’s Additional Government Advocate defended the SIT’s formation, citing the government's mandate to act on previous court orders directing an investigation into land usage in the area. The state maintained that the SIT was a necessary tool to address the complex nature of the alleged violations involving lakes and stormwater drains.
Legal Analysis and The Court’s Reasoning
In granting the stay, the court underscored the necessity of strict adherence to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It clarified that determining encroachment is not an arbitrary exercise but a technical one requiring the presence and participation of the aggrieved party. By bypassing the mandatory joint survey, the state’s action failed to satisfy basic requirements of and .
The court referenced its own observations from a order, noting that authorities must follow the statutory procedures under the 1964 Act before forming conclusions regarding land status.
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 encroachment of the land belonging to the Government, under such circumstances, the joint survey 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 encroachment, 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.”
The Road Ahead
The High Court has stayed the implementation of the July 17 order until the next date of hearing, scheduled for . This interim relief prevents the SIT from proceeding with its investigation for the time being, pending further clarity on whether the revenue authorities will comply with the court's directive to conduct a formal, transparent, and legally sound land survey. The case highlights the judiciary’s firm stance on requiring administrative bodies to follow established statutory frameworks when initiating action against public charitable trusts.
