- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30428-DB WP No. 5914 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 5914 OF 2026 (KLGP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, R/AT KAJISONNENAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 067. 2. SRI. S. NAGENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, R/AT KAJISONNENAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 067. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. Y. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE YEDDULAPPA, 2. SRI. MUNEENDRA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30428-DB WP No. 5914 of 2026 3. SRI. SOMASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBAPPA, 4. SRI. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE MUNNARASIMAIAH, 5. SRI. SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O NARAYANASWAMY, THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT: KAJISONNENAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 067. 6. SRI. VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 067. 7. SRI. TEJAS KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJ, R/A KAJISONNENAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 067. 8. THE TAHSILDHAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHIKUMAR.A.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7, SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R8) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30428-DB WP No. 5914 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:27.01.2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN IA NO.2/24 IN LGC(T) (CIVIL) NO.1665/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru (Court Hall-1), in LGC(T) No.1665/2024 (in OS.No.673/2024). 2. The petitioner is accused of encroaching/ grabbing 67,712.50 sq.ft of Government Gramathana Hunisethopu land situated at Kajisonnenahalli Village, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. A criminal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30428-DB WP No. 5914 of 2026 complaint has been filed against the petitioner in LGC(P) No.159/2023 on 25.05.2023. The Tahsildar has given report in the said complaint against the petitioner for grabbing the Government land. After the notice was issued to the petitioner by the Land Grabbing Court, he filed a civil suit in OS.No.679/2024 on 10.04.2024 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. On an application filed by the respondent, the said suit got transferred under Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an injunction against the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property which is allegedly grabbed by him. 3. The Land Grabbing Court while deciding the said application has framed three points for consideration, which are as under: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have made out of prima- facie case in their favour? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30428-DB WP No. 5914 of 2026 2. Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs? 3. Whether plaintiffs will be put to untold hardship, if an order of temporary injunction as prayed is not granted? 4. What order? 4. The learned Land Grabbing Court on consideration of the material brought on record as well as the submissions held that there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, neither there was any balance of convenience nor any hardship would be caused, if injunction as prayed for not granted. 5. The said order is on relevant considerations. Tashildar report is specific that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land to an extent of more than 67 thousand square feet. 6. We find no reason to interfere with the said order passed by the Land Grabbing Court impugned in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30428-DB WP No. 5914 of 2026 present writ petition. Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition however without cost. 7. The trial of the case pending before the Land Grabbing Court should proceed expeditiously in accordance with law. 8. Any observation made by us will not influence the decision on merit by the Land Grabbing Court. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 ct-vn