- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5214 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. N.A. VENUGOPAL SON OF LATE N.M.ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18/21, 7TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OM KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANNARAYAPATTANA GRAM PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHANNARAYAPATTANA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135. 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEVANAHALLI TALUK PANCHAYAT, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU -560001 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 5. SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT IRIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SRI. HARISHA M. S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT IRIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 7. SRI. DEVARAJU H.S. S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT IRIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 8. SRI. VENU S., S/O SHANKARAPPA M.S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT IRIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 8 IMPLEADED AND AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 15.10.2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 8) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER NO. BNG.RURAL/DEV/TP/165/CHA.VP/IRIGENAHALL/KHA.VA/1574/2024- 25 DTD. 01.02.2025 HOLDING THAT THERE IS AN ENCROACHMENT OF ABOUT 31 GUNTAS OF LAND BELONGING TO THE PANCHAYAT BY THE PETITIONER PASSED BY THE R-1 AND 2 HEREIN AS PER ANNX-B AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO CONDUCT A PROPER ENQUIRY BY GIVING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE TITLE OF THE PETITIONER TO LAND IN QUESTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO AWAIT THE RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN O.S.NO.465/2025 PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND DISPOSSESS THE PLAINTIFF FROM THE LAND IN QUESTION ONLY IN THE EVENT OF PETITIONER FAILING TO PROVE HIS TITLE AND LAWFUL POSSESSION OVER THE LAND IN QUESTION BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.¨ÉA.UÁæ.zÉÃ/PÁ.¤.C/vÁ.¥ÀA/165/ZÀ.UÁæ.¥ÀA/EgÀUÀ£ÀºÀ½î/SÁ.ªÀ/2024-25/1574 dated 01.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to conduct a proper enquiry by giving - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 adequate opportunity to demonstrate his title to the property in question or in the alternative to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to await the result of the suit in O.S.No.465/2025 pending adjudication before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.37 of Irigenahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, now assessed as property No.49 measuring 14,320 sq. ft. and property No.50 measuring 19,375 sq. ft. He claims that he has been paying property tax in respect of the aforesaid two properties to the respondent No.1. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 passed a resolution stating that he had encroached upon the property of the Panchayat. He claims that this resolution was without conducting any survey and without any prior intimation to him. He alleged that the respondent No.1 tried to trespass the land belonging to him and therefore, he filed a suit in O.S.No.572/2024 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Devanahalli, to protect his possession. He claims that during the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.2 had passed an order bearing No. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 ¨ÉA.UÁæ.zÉÃ/PÁ.¤.C/vÁ.¥ÀA/165/ZÀ.UÁæ.¥ÀA/EgÀUÀ£ÀºÀ½î/SÁ.ªÀ/2024-25/1574 dated 01.02.2025 holding that the petitioner had encroached into about 31 guntas of land belonging to the Panchayat. (ii) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.3 under Section 72 read with Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and Rule 5 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Clearance of Encroachments) Rules, 2011. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and the resolution passed by the respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the aforesaid properties and that the documents maintained in the office of the respondent No.1 bear testimony to the above fact. He also contends that the respondent No.1 without conducting a survey of the property belonging to it, had falsely alleged that the petitioner had encroached into the property belonging to it. He therefore, contends that without identifying its property, the respondent No.1 could not have passed any resolution holding - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 that the petitioner has encroached into the property belonging to it. He contended that the petitioner has now filed O.S.No.465/2025 for declaration of title and injunction and therefore, the impugned order is coming in the way of the petitioner establishing his right for interim protection of his possession. He therefore, submits that until suit is decided, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 may be kept in abeyance. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed statement of objections stating that the petitioner has not produced any document of title in respect of the properties, which he claims. They therefore, contend that the title of the petitioner is in dispute. They also contend that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.572/2024 for perpetual injunction and during the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2. Therefore, they allege that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is claimed that there are no details regarding ownership of the property of father of the petitioner in the records of the Gram Panchayat. As regards entries found in the revenue register, it is contended that there - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 are no title deeds in respect of the property based upon which entries were made in the registers of Panchayat and therefore, those documents do not confer any right upon the petitioner. With these and other contentions, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 reiterated the above contentions. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the properties in question but it belongs to the Panchayat and that all the villagers of Irigenahalli are entitled to enjoy the said properties. He therefore, contends that the petitioner has not produced any documents to establish that the properties claimed by the respondent No.1 belong to him. He therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also contends that survey of the land belonging to the respondent No.1 is conducted and the area encroached by the petitioner is identified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8. 8. Though the petitioner has claimed in this writ petition that he is the owner of the aforesaid properties, he for reasons unknown, has not placed on record any documents of title in respect of the said properties. It is apparent that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.572/2024 for perpetual injunction in respect of the aforesaid properties, which is now said to have been withdrawn and a fresh suit is filed in O.S.No.465/2025 for declaration of title and injunction. Therefore, the petitioner is claiming that he has a better title than the respondent No.1 in respect of the aforesaid properties. Consequently, it is for him to prove before the Civil Court that he has better title than the respondent No.1, in which event, the Civil Court would adjudicate upon the issue and return a finding. As regards the impugned order, since the petitioner is already before the Civil Court, it is for him to establish that he has got better title and consequently, impugned order cannot be given effect to. Under - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41849 WP No. 5214 of 2025 the circumstances, no indulgence can be shown in this writ petition. 9. However, if an application is filed by the petitioner for interim injunction in O.S.No.465/2025, it is open for the petitioner to establish that notwithstanding the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2, he is entitled to an interim order to protect his possession. If the Trial Court is satisfied, it may protect the possession of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is disposed off on the above terms. 11. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15