Karnataka High Court
Sri Muni Anjanappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10917-DB
WP No. 30919 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 30919 OF 2018 (KLGP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNI ANJANAPPA
S/O LATE PILLAPPA
HINDU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT SY NO.56/1
YELLUPURA VILLAGE
VEERAPURA POST
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLPURA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. SATISH R., ADVOCATE)
by
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA
AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
VISVEWSWARAIAH TOWERS
BANGALORE-560 001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10917-DB
WP No. 30919 of 2018
3. THE TAHSILDAR
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-561 203.
4. SRI RAMAMURTHY GOWDA
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.2, 8TH CROSS
OBALAPPA LAYOUT
PAPAREDDY PALYA
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri G.S.ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.9.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT
(COURT HALL NO.2) KANDAYA BHAVANA, BANGALORE -
560 009 IN L.G.C.(P) NO. 468/2017 TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 4(3) OF KARNATAKA LAND
GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT 2011 AGAINST THE PETITIONER
AT ANNEX-J AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10917-DB
WP No. 30919 of 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
In this writ petition, the petitioner assailed the cognizance
Order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Karnataka Land
Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Kandaya Bhavana,
Bengaluru-560009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special
Court') in L.G.C(P) No.468/2017 under Section 4(3) of
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act').
2. We have heard the learned Additional Government
Advocate.
3. Albeit, sufficient opportunity was accorded to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he incessantly
remained absent.
The abridged facts of the case are as follows:
4. One Ramamurthy Gowda, filed a complaint before
the Special Court against the Petitioner herein alleging that, the
land bearing Sy.No.56/1, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of
Yellupura Village, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural
NC: 2025:KHC:10917-DB
District belonging to the Mujrai Department was encroached by
the petitioner. On receiving the said complaint the Special
Court sought for a report from the Tahsildar, Doddaballapura
Taluk to verify the veracity of the complaint. Accordingly, the
Tahsildar submitted the report before the Special Court on
10.08.2017 along with documents. On assessing the report and
documents, the Special Judge took cognizance of the case
against the petitioner herein vide Order dated 12.09.2017
under Section 4(3) of the Act and directed the petitioner to
appear before the Special Court. The said Order is challenged
in this writ petition.
5. We have carefully perused the comprehensive
materials placed before us.
6. It is gathered from the records that the Special
Court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner
based on the report placed by the Tahsildar of Doddaballapura,
stating that as per Taluk survey sketch and report, the
petitioner illegally encroached 1 acre 34 guntas of land bearing
Sy.No.56/1 at Yellupura Village of Daddaballpura Taluk. The
veracity of the report and the complaint were collectively tested
NC: 2025:KHC:10917-DB
in detailed proceedings before the Special Court. Nevertheless,
the petitioner has failed to place any such prima facie
documents to establish that he has not illegally encroached the
land as stated in the report filed by the Tahsildar. In that view
of the matter, we find no error in the cognizance Order taken
by the learned Special Court. Accordingly, this writ petition
lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
deem it appropriate to direct the Special Court to dispose the
proceedings expeditiously within an outer-limit of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
8. All the contentions are left open.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
RAK
