- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23611/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. E.S. SATISH KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. E. SUBBAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O OPPOSITE NEW COURT MTC COLONY GOWRIBIDANUR-561208. 2. SRI. E.S. RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. E. SUBBAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O BEHIND STATE BANK OF MYSORE GOWRIBIDANUR-561208. 3. SRI. E.S. SAMPANGIRAM S/O LATE SRI. E. SUBBAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O ESTURI NIVAS, M.G.ROAD GOWRIBIDANUR-561208. 4. SRI. E.S. SRIDHAR S/O LATE SRI. E. SUBBAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O ESTURI NIVAS, M.G.ROAD GOWRIBIDANUR-561208. 5. SMT. ANURADHA W/O SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O ATHENS STREET NO.3 PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-29. R Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 6. SMT. KAVITHA W/O SRI. G. VENKATESWAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.344/18, 1ST MAIN ROAD 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALOE-82. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV.,) AND: 1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-01. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101. 3. TAHSILDAR GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK GOWRIBIDANUR-562101 KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA A/W SMT. K.P. YESHODRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:15.4.2019 VIDE ANENXURE-A PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GOWRIBIDANUR ON MEMO DTD:6.9.2018 IN O.S.NO.30/2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE MEMO DTD:6.9.2018, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur (for short ‘the Trial Court’) on the memo dated 06.09.2018 filed in O.S.No.30/2007. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.30/2007 seeking the relief of declaration and possession along with other reliefs. In the said suit, the respondents filed a memo dated 06.09.2018 seeking to transfer the aforesaid suit to the Special Court established under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the ground that the issue concerned is with regard to a public tank that is located in a Government property. The Trial Court considered the said memo and transferred the case to the Special Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 established under the Act. Being aggrieved, this petition is filed by the petitioners. 3. Sri.K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior counsel appearing for Smt.Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the material on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the suit in O.S.No.30/2007 is one seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs, by tracing the title to the sale certificate dated 21.03.1956 issued in Execution Case No.26/1954. Hence, the nature of the suit is purely civil in nature that needs to be decided by the Civil Court. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Act are totally inapplicable to the case on hand as the petitioner in the instant case has not committed the act of ‘land grabbing’ as defined under the provisions of the Act. It is also submitted that in the written statement filed by the respondents, there is no express allegation of ‘land grabbing’ against the petitioners, hence, without such an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 allegation of the ‘land grabbing’, the case on hand cannot be tried by the Special Court established under the Act. It is contended that the Trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order without assigning any cogent reasons as to why the suit needs to be transferred to the Special Court established under the Act. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of SMT.SUNITHA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERs1 and SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SANAULLA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER2. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has considered the material on record in its right perspective and the same does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the RTC records clearly 1 W.P.No.51187/2019 dtd 26.11.2019 2 W.P.No.17498/2023 dtd 17.08.2023w - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 indicate that the property in which the tank is located is a government property, hence, the case ought to be transferred to the Special Court established under the Act. It is further submitted that the Special Court established under the Act also has the power to try the issues regarding title and possession, hence, the transfer of the suit to the Special Court cannot be interfered with. It is also submitted that the petitioners ought to establish lawful entitlement and a mere prima facie case is not sufficient to exclude the case from the purview of the Act. In support of her contentions, she places reliance on the following decisions: a) KONDA LAKSHMANA BAPUJI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS3 b) MAHALAXMI MOTORS LTD Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER AND OTHERS4 c) ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS Vs. RANJAN BALA DASI AND OTHERS5 3 (2002) 3 SCC 258 4 (2007) 11 SCC 714 5 (2023) 19 SCC 448 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 d) ALPHONSA GILBERT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER6 e) e) SRI.T.T.RAJESH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS7 f) DILERKHAN AND OTHERS Vs. SHAHZAD BEGUM URF RAHAMATKHATIB AND OTHERS8 g) SRI.GANGADHARA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS9 h) JOSEPH SALDHANA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA10 Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 6. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.30/2007 seeking the relief of declaration and other consequential 6 W.P.No.9099/2019 dtd 12.03.2020 7 W.P.No1410/2019 dtd 05.02.2019 8 2018 SCC Online Kar 4031 9 2018 SCC Online Kar 3726 102019 SCC Online Kar 3657 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 reliefs. In the said suit, the respondents filed a memo seeking to transfer the suit to the Special Court established under the provisions of the Act. The Trial Court proceeded to the pass the impugned order on the ground that the plaintiffs have not produced any source of title of the suit schedule property and further that the petitioners have failed to explain as to whether the said tank has been constructed as per the provisions of Section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Trial Court also held that the decree passed in O.S.No.64/1947- 48, wherein the sale certificate was issued is not binding on the respondents as they were not party to the same. Hence, the Trial Court transferred the case to the Special Court established under the Act. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the issue at hand is about declaration of title, which is civil in nature and the same has to be decided by a Civil Court. It is also contended that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 issue at hand does not involve the act of ‘land grabbing’, hence, the same cannot be tried by the Special Court. 8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions and consider the material on record in its proper perspective, it would be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of SMT.SUNITHA referred supra, wherein it was held as under: “18. Before adverting to the facts or arguments advanced, it would be appropriate to refer to the aims and objects of the Act. A perusal thereof would indicate that the objectives sought to be achieved under the Act are: “An Act to provide for measures to curb organized attempts to grab lands whether belonging to the Government, wakf or the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, local authorities or other statutory or non-statutory bodies owned or controlled or managed by the Government. And whereas such land grabbers are forming bogus cooperative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large scale, unprecedented and fraudulent sale of such lands through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 favour of certain sections of the people resulting in large accumulation of unaccounted wealth and quick money to land grabbers and thereby adversely affecting public order; And whereas, having regard to the resources and influence of the persons by whom, the large scale, on which and the manner in which, the unlawful activity of land grabbing was, has been, is being organised and carried on in violation of law, as land grabbers in the State of Karnataka, it is necessary and expedient to curb immediately such unlawful activity of land grabbing.” 19. From the above objectives, it is clear that the Act was brought into force to curb organized attempts to grab lands belonging to the Government, wakf or the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, local authorities or other statutory or non-statutory bodies owned or controlled by the Government. It is also stated that this was to stop the large scale fraudulent sale by unscrupulous real estate dealers, etc. Thus, it is clear that the Act can be put in force only in such circumstances. Some of the definitions relevant for the matter on hand are those covered under Section 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(g) of the Act, they are extracted herein below for reference: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 2(d) “Land” includes,- (i) land belonging to the Government, Wakf or the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, a local authority, a statutory or non statutory body owned, controlled or managed by the Government; (ii) rights in or over land, benefits to arise out of land, and buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth;” 2(e) “Land Grabber” means a person or group of persons or a Society, who commits or has committed land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such land rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and also includes the successors in interest;” 2(f) “Land Grabbing’’ means every activity of grabbing of any land, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements construct unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and license basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorised structures; and the term “to grab land’’ shall be construed accordingly; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 2(g) “Local Authority” includes the Municipal Corporation, a Municipal council, Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, Town Panchayat, Industrial Township, Improvement Board, Urban Development Authority and Planning Authority or any Local Self Government body or institution by whatever name called constituted under any law for the time being in force;” 20. Land grabbing as defined under Section 2(f) has been made unlawful in terms of Section 3 which reads: “ 3. Land grabbing to be unlawful: Land grabbing in any form is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful and any activity connected with or arising out of land grabbing shall be an offence punishable under this Act.” 21. Section 4 of the Act prohibits land grabbing, making it a penal offence and reads: “4. Prohibition of land grabbing:- (1) No person shall commit or cause to be committed land grabbing, by himself or through any other person. (2) Any person who, on or after the commencement of this Act, continue to be in occupation, otherwise than as a lawful tenant, of a grabbed land belonging to the Government, Wakf, Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments, local authority, statutory or non-statutory body owned, controlled or managed by the State Government shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. (3) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 (2) shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years, and with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees.” 22. Section 5 of the Act provides for penalty for other offences in connection with land grabbing and reads: “5. Penalty for other offences in connection with land grabbing.- Whoever, with a view to grabbing land in contravention of the provisions of this Act or in connection with any such land grabbing,- (a) sells or allots, or offers or advertises for sale or allotment, or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or allotment any land grabbed; (b) instigates or incites any person to commit land grabbing; (c) uses any land grabbed or causes or permits knowingly to be used for purposes, connected with sale or allotment; or (d) enters into an agreement for construction of any structure or buildings on such land; (e) causes or procures or attempts to procure any person to do any of above mentioned acts; shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees.” 23. Section 20 deals with ‘transfer of cases pending before any other Court or Authority and it reads: “20. Transfer of pending cases.- Any case, pending before any court or other authority - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 immediately before the constitution of a Special Court, as would have been within the jurisdiction of such Special Court, shall stand transferred to the Special Court as if the cause of action on which such suit or proceeding is based had arisen after the constitution of the Special Court” 24. From a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that unless an act of land grabbing as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, extracted above, is committed by a person who can be termed as land grabber in terms of Section 2(e), of land as defined under section 2(d), no proceedings can be initiated. An action can be brought against a person if only such person satisfies the definition of ‘land grabber’ under Section 2(e) of the Act, namely for committing an act of ‘land grabbing’ as per Section 2(e). 25. An action/suit/proceeding brought about by any person seeking to protect his/her interest would establish that he/she does not come within the four corners of the Act. At the most, the defence that can be taken up by the Authorities if they have been arrayed as defendants in that proceeding is to contend that the land belongs to them and the plaintiff has committed an act of land grabbing, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any protection or reliefs in the said proceedings. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 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 in land 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 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 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. 28. In other words, Court or authoirtiy has to arrive at a conclusion that activity of grabbing of any land is without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally take possession of such land. 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 cannot be transferred under the Act to the Special Court.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It would further be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SANAULLA referred supra, wherein it was held as under: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 “5. In essence, the suit is one for assertion of the plaintiff's/petitioner herein's title which they premise on a registered conveyance deed of the year 1977-78, which are produced as Annexure-H series. If that be the position, then the moot question that would arise for consideration is whether the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short, 'the Act of 2011') attracted. For a better appreciation of the issue, we delve into the definition of the act of Land Grabbing as defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act of 2011. Land Grabbing is defined as under: 2(f) "land grabbing" means every activity of grabbing of any land, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking 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 lands to any person on rental or lease and license basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorized structures; and the term "to grab land" shall be construed accordingly." 6. Every activity which enables a person to take possession of land [land as defined under the Act] without there being a lawful entitlement, is defined as an act of grabbing of land. Attempts to enable taking of possession through fictitious and illegal arrangements like tenancy, lease, construction of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 unauthorized structures are also to be construed as acts amounting to grabbing of land. Thus, on a plain reading of the definition, it is apparent that attempts by any person to illegally take possession of land either directly or indirectly and without there being any legal entitlement is construed as an act of land grabbing. 7. In the case on hand, the possession of the land prima-facie is not without a legal entitlement. The sale deeds are of the year 1977 and have acquired some legal sanctity under the relevant laws since 1981 and it is needless to say that they would enable the Courts of law to draw a presumption unless rebutted or negated by appropriate material. The petitioners' possession is traceable under the covenants of the sale deed, more particularly the unnumbered paragraph on page No.6 of the sale deed dated 19.08.1977. The said sale in favour of the petitioners has been preceded by four earlier sale deeds and an order of grant by the State. Thus, we are of the prima-facie opinion that the possession of the petitioners even assuming for argument sake that the lands are indeed lands of the forest, the same would not constitute an act of land grabbing and the same is required to be adjudicated as a pure and simple title suit and therefore if the re- possessing of the land by the Department is resisted - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 then the same would definitely tantamount to land grabbing. 8. A prima-facie reading of the definition would require a conscious act on the part of the land grabber in attempting to inject himself into the land or inject on to the land his nominee, be that under whatever guise, as a tenancy, lessee, etc., Here the petitioners have not put themselves into possession rather the petitioners have been put into the possession under a registered sale deed. If that be the position, then the Special Court would be denuded of any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the suit. We find that the Special Court has gone amiss and failed to consider this issue.” 10. It would also be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of SRI GANGADHARA AND OTHERS referred supra, wherein it was held as under: “6. As per Sections 7 and 9 of the Act, a Special Court has jurisdiction to try any alleged act of land grabbing, cases in respect of the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed and offences specified in Chapter XIV-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The matters specified in - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 SECTION 7(1) of the Act will fall within the jurisdiction of a Special Court. 7. As per Section 20 of the Act, the Trial Court, before directing transfer of any suit to the Special Court, has to examine as to whether the suit would fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. Therefore, the Trial Court will have to examine as to whether the suit relates to any of the matters specified in SECTION 7(1) of the Act or as to whether any issue relating to those matters would fall for determination in the suit. If the suit involves any of those matters or any issue relating to those matters, then only the suit shall be transferred to the Special Court. In the absence of any such matter or issue, transferring the suit to the Special Court will be contrary to Section 20 of the Act.” 11. The learned counsel for the respondents-State places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of JOSEPH SALDHANA referred supra and contends that the Special Court established under the Act has the power to decide on the issues with regard to the title and possession, hence, the transfer of the suit to the Trial Court is justified. Though the power of Special Court to - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 decide on the issues of title and possession is established in the aforesaid decision, the same is not applicable in the instant case as in the aforesaid case, the petitioner therein had categorically stated that he is in adverse possession over the land belonging to the Government for a period of 30 years and it was held that once such an admission is made that the land belongs to the Government, then the provisions of the Act would be applicable. However, in the instant case, there is neither an admission that the land is a Government land nor an express allegation is made against the petitioner that he has committed land grabbing. Furthermore, the petitioner is claiming the title and possession as per the sale certificate dated 21.03.1956. Hence, the aforesaid decision will not aid the respondents in their case. 12. In the decisions of KONDA LAKSHMI BAPUJI referred supra and MAHALAXMI MOTORS referred supra relied on by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it was held that the person claiming right over a property - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 must do so with ‘lawful entitlement’ and not mere prima facie case in order to be excluded from the purview of the Act and that mere allegation with regard to land grabbing is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Special Court. In the said context, I am of the view that any person who stakes a claim upon a property on the basis of a valid document issued or granted in his favour is considered to have 'lawful entitlement' over the said property. Though the validity of the said document may be subject to the challenge by the Authorities, the same cannot be transferred to the Special Court established under the Act, merely on the account of such challenge, except if the validity of the document is challenged on account of fraud or forgery. This view also gains support from the decision of this Court in the case of SURESH NINGAPPA ARER V STATE OF KARNATAKA11. 13. Considering the factual matrix of the case and law on the point, I am of the view that the following 11 W.P.No.100588/2021 dtd 11.01.2023 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 aspects are required to be considered by the Trial Court while transferring the suit to the Special Court established under the Act. a) The act of ‘land grabbing’ ought to be a conscious act on the part of the land grabber attempting to illegally inject himself into the land without any prima facie legal entitlement. b) For any action to be initiated under the Act, there must be a positive action by the Authorities concerned against any person for the act of ‘land grabbing’. c) Though the Special Court has the power to decide on the issues with regard to title and possession, it is the duty of the Trial Court to determine whether the matter or issue at hand involves ‘land grabbing’ as per the Act and record a reasoned finding, with regard to the same and in the absence of any matter or issue with regard to ‘land grabbing’, the transfer - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 of the suit to the Special Court would be contrary to Section 20 of the Act. 14. In the instance, it is clear that the petitioners are claiming their title on the basis of the sale certificate dated 21.03.1956 and merely because the respondents were not party to the suit in which the sale certificate was issued, the petitioners cannot be termed as land grabbers. Hence, there is a clear legal entitlement to the claim of the petitioners and it is prima facie not an act of illegally taking possession. It is further clear that the respondents have neither made an allegation against the petitioners for ‘land grabbing’ nor have they undertaken any positive action to initiate proceedings against the petitioners for the act of ‘land grabbing’ and in the absence of such positive action, the case on hand cannot be considered to fall within the purview of the Act. It is also noticed that the Trial Court has made a specific finding that the respondents have not made a specific allegation against the petitioners for land grabbing but the same is implied - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 as per the written statement filed by the respondents, such an inference by the Trial Court, without there being an express allegation against the petitioner is impermissible. Furthermore, the Trial Court in the impugned order has not recorded a finding with regard to the satisfaction that the petitioners have committed the act of ‘land grabbing’ without any lawful entitlement as per the Act. Hence, in absence of such a specific finding that the petitioners are alleged to have committed the act of land grabbing, the same cannot be transferred to the Special Court established under the Act. 15. Therefore, in the instant case, the sale certificate dated 21.03.1956 was issued in Execution Case No.26/1956 on the basis of a decree in O.S.No.64/1947- 48. Hence, the said sale certificate grants a lawful entitlement to the petitioners to claim ownership over the land and the respondent-Authorities though dispute the same, do not contend that the said sale certificate is either obtained by fraud or forgery. Furthermore, with regard to - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 mere allegation being sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Special Court, in the instant case, there are no allegations made by the respondent-Authorities that the petitioners have committed land grabbing. 16. It is to be noted that the Special Courts have been established under the Act in order to facilitate specialized and speedy disposal of disputes with regard to ‘land grabbing’ and if civil suits involving declaration and possession are mechanically transferred to the Special Court merely because the State has taken defence in the written statement in a suit that a property is a Government property, then the same would amount to defeating the intent of the legislature. In view of the above analysis, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioners rightly submits that the issue at hand does not involve the Act of ‘land grabbing’ and the Special Court does not have the jurisdiction to try the same as per the Act. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32803 W.P. No.23611/2019 17. Hence, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is required to be interfered with. 18. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur on a memo filed in O.S.No.30/2007 is hereby set aside. (iii) O.S.No.30/2007 is restored to file. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1