<p>Bengaluru: There is no justification for staying all further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by the Ramanagar tahsildar to Union Steel Minister H D Kumaraswamy in relation to the Kethaganahalli land encroachment, the High Court of Karnataka has ruled.</p><p>The court had earlier stated that no coercive action should be taken in the matter, based on the assurance given by the Additional Advocate General.</p><p>"In my view, obviously, the tahsildar would consider the objections that are filed by the petitioner and only thereafter, an order of eviction would be passed. In that view of the matter, there is no justification for staying all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file objections to the notice, and it is also made clear that if any reports are relied upon by the tahsildar for issuance of the impugned notice, the same shall be furnished to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to file effective and comprehensive objections,” Justice N S Sanjay Gowda noted in his detailed order passed on Tuesday.</p>.Trust land in Bengaluru: SC for Karnataka HC to defer contempt proceedings .<p>In his petition, Kumaraswamy stated that the notice dated March 18, 2025, relating to about six acres of land, was neither maintainable under law nor on facts. According to him, similar proceedings initiated in respect of the very lands in the past were dropped after necessary documents were produced.</p><p>He further claimed that the notice issued under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was without jurisdiction. He subsequently challenged the validity of Section 104 of the Act after the state government claimed that the amended section provides such power to the tahsildar.</p><p>After perusing the material, the court pointed out that the tahsildar showed that he had been furnished with the report and sketch, which indicated that the petitioner had encroached upon certain lands.</p><p>"The tahsildar, in view of the report and sketch, has basically called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for imposition of a fine under Section 94 of the Act and also for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 192(a) of the Act for unauthorisedly occupying government lands," Justice Gowda said, and posted Kumaraswamy's petition to April 22, 2025, for further consideration.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: There is no justification for staying all further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by the Ramanagar tahsildar to Union Steel Minister H D Kumaraswamy in relation to the Kethaganahalli land encroachment, the High Court of Karnataka has ruled.</p><p>The court had earlier stated that no coercive action should be taken in the matter, based on the assurance given by the Additional Advocate General.</p><p>"In my view, obviously, the tahsildar would consider the objections that are filed by the petitioner and only thereafter, an order of eviction would be passed. In that view of the matter, there is no justification for staying all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file objections to the notice, and it is also made clear that if any reports are relied upon by the tahsildar for issuance of the impugned notice, the same shall be furnished to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to file effective and comprehensive objections,” Justice N S Sanjay Gowda noted in his detailed order passed on Tuesday.</p>.Trust land in Bengaluru: SC for Karnataka HC to defer contempt proceedings .<p>In his petition, Kumaraswamy stated that the notice dated March 18, 2025, relating to about six acres of land, was neither maintainable under law nor on facts. According to him, similar proceedings initiated in respect of the very lands in the past were dropped after necessary documents were produced.</p><p>He further claimed that the notice issued under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was without jurisdiction. He subsequently challenged the validity of Section 104 of the Act after the state government claimed that the amended section provides such power to the tahsildar.</p><p>After perusing the material, the court pointed out that the tahsildar showed that he had been furnished with the report and sketch, which indicated that the petitioner had encroached upon certain lands.</p><p>"The tahsildar, in view of the report and sketch, has basically called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for imposition of a fine under Section 94 of the Act and also for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 192(a) of the Act for unauthorisedly occupying government lands," Justice Gowda said, and posted Kumaraswamy's petition to April 22, 2025, for further consideration.</p>