- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15618 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 10765 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 15618/2025 BETWEEN: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU – 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …PETITIONER (BY SRI AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A.S.SURAJKUMAR, S/O A.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.02, 3RD CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (MAYO HALL) ON ADDL ISSUE IN OS NO. 26968/2022 AS PER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 ANNEXURE-C AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT DECIDE ON THE ADDITIONAL ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. IN WP NO. 10765/2025 BETWEEN: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A.S.SURAJKUMAR, S/O A.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.02, 3RD CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (MAYO HALL) ON IA NO. 03 IN OS NO. 26968/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-C AND TRANSFER THE SUIT TO KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURTS AT BANGLORE CITY AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-Bangalore Development Authority is at the doors of this Court calling in question the orders dated 30.09.2024 and 24.02.2025 by which the concerned Court declines to transfer the pending suit to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts constituted under Section 10 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. 2. Heard Sri.Ajay Kumar M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.H.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.26968/2022 seeking declaration and injunction restraining the respondent-BDA from interfering with the possession of the property. The plaintiff comes into possession of the property on a purchase from one Sri.S.Shankarappa who had been allotted site from the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (CITB). It transpires - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 that after the sale in terms of two sale deeds on 21.10.1989 and 16.12.1991, the BDA began to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore had to institute suits in O.S.No.3128/2003 and O.S.No.7106/2005, both of which have been decreed in favour of the petitioner and against the BDA. The BDA is said to have preferred Regular First Appeal before this Court and is pending adjudication. The present suit comes about seeking relief of declaration and mandatory injunction in the light of the persistent interference of the BDA with the possession of the plaintiff. 4. In the said proceedings, the BDA files application seeking transfer of the suit to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts on the score that the plaintiff is a land grabber and the land belongs to BDA and seeks to framing an additional issue which should be treated as preliminary issue as to whether the suit by a land grabber is maintainable or the matter has to be transferred to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts created under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The concerned Court rejects the applications on the score that it is not the stage at which it - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 can be decided as it would require evidence and it a matter of trial. The BDA being aggrieved by the said order, is at the doors of this Court. 5. Learned counsel Ajay Kumar M., appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the issue is a question of jurisdiction of the concerned Court, as the plaintiff is a land grabber and therefore, the matter should be tried only before the Land Grabbing Court and not before the Civil Court. It may be that the application is preferred at the fag end of the trial, since it is the issue concerning the jurisdiction, the Court ought to have answered it in favour of the BDA. He would seek the orders be set aside and the matter be placed before the Land Grabbing Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submission reiterating the plaint averments contending that he is in lawful possession for the last 37 years, having purchased from an allottee from the City Improvement Trust Board, he would submit that it is a matter of trial. The concerned Court has appropriately held that it is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 matter of trial and not transfer simplicitor to the Land Grabbing Court. It that light, he would seek dismissal of the petitions. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner comes in possession of the property pursuant to two sale deeds dated 21.10.1989 and 16.12.1991 from an allottee from the City Improvement Trust Board which allotment is said to have been made on 22.05.1971 and the petitioner has put up a residential house in the said place. The plaintiff was constrained to institute two suits as observed herein above seeking injunction against the BDA from interfering with his possession. Both the suits are decreed and have become final which would prima facie indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the property, as those were suits for injunction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 9. The BDA does not stop but interferes with the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, the subject suit comes about. In the suit comes the application filed by the BDA seeking transfer of the matter to the hands of the Land Grabbing Court by framing an additional issue to be treated as a preliminary issue, whether the suit was maintainable or otherwise. The Division Bench of this Court in SMT.SUNITHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 2021 KAR 385 while answering an identical circumstance as to when the civil suit should be transferred to the Land Grabbing Court, has elucidated as follows: "29. Thus, necessarily if a person is claiming a right by way of a lawful entitlement through any valid document issued or granted in favour of such person, which though disputed by the Authorities concerned on the ground that such a grant, allotment or the like could not have been made in favour of such persons, so long as the said document relied upon by the plaintiff is not countered or negated on the basis of fraud or forgery and the claim of the plaintiff being one of a lawful entitlement, such a proceedings pending before competent Civil Court can not be transferred under the Act to the Special Court. 30. If any action of land grabbing has not been committed, plaintiff therein cannot be termed to be a land grabber. There is no unlawful act committed. Hence, in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act, Special Court would not have jurisdiction in the matter. Section 7(1) of the Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “7(1) Constitution of Special Courts.- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 (1) The Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy enquiry’ into any alleged act of land grabbing, and trial of cases in respect of the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of the land grabbed and those offences specified in Chapter XIV-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by notification, constitute a Special Court.” 31. In such circumstances, any such pending action cannot be transferred to the Special Court in terms of Section 20 of the Act. The Court before whom the matter is pending would have to proceed with the same in the ordinary course. 32. Under similar circumstances in W.P. No. 50704/2019, disposed of by the bench on 19.11.2019 we have held; “6. Having observed XXXX & JMFC, Mandya. Averments made in the plaint as extracted by the Special Court would disclose that plaintiff had specifically contended that suit schedule property was granted to him by Tahsildar, Mandya by grant order RUOL 674/98-99 on 16.09.2002. It is also contended that by way of such grant he has been in possession and enjoyment of said land and he has also installed I.R. set and has raised coconut, mango and chikkoo trees. In other words, it is the specific case of plaintiff that land in question i.e., suit schedule property was granted to him. For initiating proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, provisions of Sections 2(e), 2(f) or 2(i) would be subject to such person falling within the definition of Section 2(e) and 2(f) of the Act. To put it differently, Court adjudicating the lis has to form an opinion that land which is in question is a government land and plaintiff Mefendant, as the case may be, would fall within the definition of Section 2(e) or 2(f) and only on such opinion being formed or finding recorded Civil Court will seize to have jurisdiction and only such matters requires to be transferred to the Special Court constituted under the Act as prescribed under Section 20. In the absence of such opinion or finding recorded by the Civil Court, there cannot be any transfer/simplicitor”. 33. The above being the position of law, the action of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya said to be acting on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 the proceedings of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya transferring records in O.S. No. 105/2015 to the Special Court for disposal by referring to a Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 10.08.2015 and the Circular of this Court dated 22.03.2017 in a perfunctory manner is impermissible. The Circular of this Court dated 22.03.2017 does not withdraw and transfer the cases to the Special Court. The said circular only informs the jurisdictional District and Sessions Judges of the constitution of the Court and instructs such Judges to withdraw and transfer the cases “fallins under the Act” to the Special Court at Bengaluru. It is therefore incumbent upon the Presiding Officers where a particular case is pending before said Courts to arrive at a conclusion that particular case would satisfy the requirement of Section 20 of the Act. Only after recording such satisfaction, the Presiding Officer of such Court would be empowered to transfer the matter to the Special Court. 34. In the present case, there is no objective satisfaction of the requirement of Section 20 of the Act recorded by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya and Trial Judge has proceeded to transfer the case as if the Circular dated 22.03.2017 withdraws all the cases and transfers the same to the Special Court constituted under the Act, when in fact, it does not. The said circular categorically makes it clear that only such of the cases falling under the Act are to be transferred. The determination thereof, has to be made by a judicial order by the Presiding Officer, and it cannot mechanically transfer all matters merely because there is an allegation of land grabbing by any of the parties to the lis. 35. Any Court or Authority’ intending to transfer any proceeding to the Special Court has to satisfy itself and pass an order in terms of what is stated hereinabove. In the absence thereof, there cannot be an administrative order of transfer of a case. In other words, it has to be a judicial order passed after necessary application of mind and law for transferring the matter. 36. In view of the fact that there is no judicial order passed and there is no judicial application of mind to the factual aspects on the part of the Prl. Civil Judge and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 JMFC, Mandya, in the manner observed by us hereinabove for transferring O.S. No. 105/2015, the order of transfer made to the Special Court is not sustainable. Hence, we are of the considered view that Judgment passed by the Special Court in LGC(T) No. 1627/2018 arising out of O.S. No. 105/2015 is erroneous and same is to be set-aside. 37. In the present case dispute, if any, between the Forest Department and Revenue Department is an interse dispute which requires to be sorted out amongst themselves and as such petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of their interse dispute. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, petitioner is a bona fide grantee of the land in question by virtue of grant Order dated 30.11.2004 and as such, has claimed to be in lawful possession of the land in question.” 10. The Division Bench holds that if a person is in lawful possession, and that possession has been interfered with, it cannot be that the said petitioner would be a land grabber and consequently, the Court should transfer the matter to the Land Grabbing Court. 11. Another Division Bench was considering entertainment of a petition before the Land Grabbing Court notwithstanding the respondent therein being in lawful possession and a suit being instituted by him, the said suit had been transferred to the Land Grabbing Court on an identical - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 application filed before the concerned Court in the said case. The Division Bench in W.P.No.4410/2020 in terms of its order dated 15.03.2022 sets aside the proceedings before the Land Grabbing Court and restores the original suit in O.S.No.301/2010. The Division Bench has held as follows: “6. The issue involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.51187/2019 disposed of on 26.11.2019 in the case of Smt.Sunitha V/s. The State of Karnataka and Others. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has extensively considered the scope and ambit of Section 20 of the Act with respect to transfer of the case to the Special Court before whom the matter is pending i.e., the Civil Courts pursuant to the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 10.08.2015 and the circular of this Court dated 22.03.2017. It is beneficial to quote the relevant paragraphs of the said decision which reads as under: “26. For an action to be initiated under the Act, there has to be a positive action by the Authorities concerned. In that, there has to be positive proceedings which are initiated against a land grabber for an action of land grabbing. It is only those proceedings which are pending before any Authority or Court which are required to be transferred to the Special Court. 27. In the event of cases, where the plaintiff has filed a suit against the Governmental authority/ies to protect his/her/its right over property either by way of injunction, declaration or otherwise and in that suit, Governmental authorities who are arrayed as defendants take up the contention that the land in question is a Government land and/or that plaintiff had indulged inland grabbing, thereby satisfying the requirements of definition of ‘land grabber’, the Court or Authority before whom such proceeding is pending is: (i) required to record a reasoned finding as to whether the Act is attracted to that fact situation after - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 having arrived at a conclusion that land is Government land; (ii) arrive at a conclusion that Act applies to the land in terms of Section 1(2) of the Act i.e., land as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act; (iii) Plaintiff has committed an act of grabbing the land in term and section 2(b), without lawful entitlement with a view to illegally take possession of such land or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such land to any person for rent or lease or licence basis for construction or use and occupation.” 7. This view is reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in batch of cases rendered on 19.01.2021 in W.P.No.47747/2017 and allied matters. In the present scenario, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, it would be suffice for us to examine as to whether the satisfaction of the requirement of Section 20 of the Act has been recorded by the Civil Court or not. On analyzing the order of the Civil Court in extenso without any hesitation, it can be held that no satisfaction of the requirement of Section 20 of the Act has been recorded by the Civil Court. Placing reliance on the notification dated 02.08.2017 issued by the Government of Karnataka and the Circular dated 22.03.2017 of this Court, the Civil Court has proceeded to transfer the case on the memo filed by the learned AGP. In the circumstances, recording of satisfaction under Section 20 of the Act being held to be sine qua non for such transfer, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Trial Court setting aside the orders passed by the Special Court dated 21.01.2020 and the Trial Court dated 23.08.2017, as any consequential order passed in pursuant to the order of the Civil Court which is perfunctory in nature, assumes the characteristics of an order passed without jurisdiction. 8. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER i] Writ Petition is allowed in part. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 ii] The judgment dated 21.01.2020 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru in LGC(T) No.2582/2017 and the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC in O.S.No.301/2010 (Annexure-‘A’ ) and (Annexure-‘F’) are set aside. iii] The matter is restored to the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (JD) & JMFC, Pavagada in O.S.No.301/2010. iv] The Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in mind the law enunciated by this Court in W.P.No.51187/2019 regarding satisfaction of the transfer under Section 20 of the Act in an expedite manner. v] It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits or demerits of the case. It is also further made clear that restoring of the matter on the file of the Civil Court would not be construed as any entitlement of injunction to the petitioners.” 12. In the light of the aforesaid orders of the Division Bench and the factum of the plaintiff coming into possession of the property through the two sale deeds, as quoted herein above and the BDA suffering two orders of injunction in suits instituted by the plaintiff-the present respondent, it would not lie with the BDA to now contend that the matter should be transferred to the Land Grabbing Court, at their asking. The law is very clear, as is elucidated herein above. Therefore, there is no warrant of interference to the order by the concerned Court - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26020 WP No. 15618 of 2025 C/W WP No. 10765 of 2025 which only directs that it is matter of evidence as to whether the plaintiff is a land grabber or otherwise. In that light, finding no merit, petitions stand rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SS