Karnataka HC refuses to quash show cause notice against 5 for encroachment in Bengaluru East

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum ruled that it is untenable to contend that the proceedings pending before the special court under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 shall not render sub judice the proceedings under the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash show cause notices against five persons under the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act for alleged encroachment of lands of Vibhuthipura Tank at Krishnarajapuram (KR Puram) in Bengaluru East.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum ruled that it is untenable to contend that the proceedings pending before the special court under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 shall not render sub judice under the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014.

The petitioners - GV Manjunath, Tamil Arasi, Palaniammal, N Sundara Murthy and Shivaraman J – filed separate petitions challenging the show cause notices issued in November 2024 against them under the provisions of the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act.

The petitioners claim ownership over residential properties in survey number 158/2AB of Vibhuthipura Village.

In support of their claims, the petitioners produced registered sale deeds, Khatha certificates, photographs evidencing the construction of houses as well as tax paid receipts.

According to the petitioners, in 2013 itself Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) police had registered a FIR under sections 192A and 192B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the matter was transferred to the special court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act.

Even as the matter is pending before the special court, show cause notices were issued by the prescribed officer under the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act. The petitioners contended the Land Grabbing Act alone governs the dispute and that proceedings under any other statute are barred due to the matter being sub judice before the special court.

After perusing the interplay between both the enactments, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that despite both the Acts containing non obstante clauses, an overriding effect, legislative intent is to permit parallel remedial action under any other law even when proceedings are initiated under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act.

The court said the proceedings under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act does not expressly provide a mechanism for summary eviction of unauthorized occupants from the encroached land and the process is criminal in nature and ends with adjudication of land grabbing and conviction.

The court further said that Section 22 of the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act provides a comprehensive remedial procedure that empowers the Prescribed Officer to summarily evict any person found to be in unauthorized occupation of tank land, thereby enabling swift and effective conservation of public tank resources.

“In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioners' argument that the pendency of proceedings before the Special Court under the Act, 2011 renders the present proceedings under the Act, 2014 sub judice is both misconceived and untenable,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said.