- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26463 WP No. 16163 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16163 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MUNICHOWDAPPA S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT INDRASANHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE -563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTS BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CUM UNDER SECRETARY (PANCHAYATH RAJ) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26463 WP No. 16163 of 2026 RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE -562 110. 4. EXECUTE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-563 101. 5. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JALIGE GRAMA PANCHAYATH DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-CODE 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KENCHEGOWDA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNX-A NO. JA.GRA. GRA. PAM.29/2026-27 DATED 19.05.2026 DIRECTED TO THE PETITIONER TO EVICT FROM THE HOUSE ON OR BEFORE 25.05.2026 FAILING WHICH FORCEFULLY EVICT AND DEMOLITION - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26463 WP No. 16163 of 2026 ON 26.05.2026 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. 44/1/2 MEASURING 35X12 PLUS 27 SQFT SITUATED AT INDRASANHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TAKUL AND PROPERTY BOUNDED ON EAST BY DODDAMUNIYAPPA PROPERTY, WEST BY POOJAPPA PROPERTY, NORTH BY DRAINAGE SOUTH BY ROAD BY ALLOWING WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts ownership of an immovable property measuring 35 x 12 + 27 square feet within the limits of Indrasanhalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk asserting that she has constructed a residential house there. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fifth respondent's order dated 19.05.2026 [Annexure-A], and the fifth respondent has directed demolition of the construction in the property claimed by the petitioner observing that once the property is demolished, a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26463 WP No. 16163 of 2026 report would be filed with the office of the Upa- lokayukta. Sri Chokkareddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, calls in question the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 emphasizing that the fifth respondent could not have assumed jurisdiction in view of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj [Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments] Rules, 2011 [for short, 2011 Rules’]. The learned counsel invites this Court’s attention to the scheme under these Rules to argue that if there is a complaint of any encroachment of a Grama Panchayat/Government property, the Panchayat Development Officer is only required to send a report to the competent authority as defined under Rule 2 (b)1 who then shall hold an enquiry under Rule 4 with the provision for an appeal under Rule 5 with the office of the Chief Executive Officer as 1. The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat or any other officer authorized by the Government. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26463 WP No. 16163 of 2026 contemplated under Section 269 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ‘the Act’]. Sri Kenchegowda, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the first and second respondents, and Sri M.S. Devaraju, a learned standing counsel for the third and fifth respondents, are heard in the light of the aforesaid circumstances. Indeed Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the 2011 Rules vindicate the petitioner’s case. The Panchayat Development Officer can only file a report with the competent authority when he is of the opinion that there is encroachment of Grama Panchayat/ Government property with the competent authority being obliged under Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules to issue notice, hear both the parties and then decide on the question of encroachment/obstruction with liberty to avail remedy under Section 269 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the 2011 Rules. The fifth respondent's order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26463 WP No. 16163 of 2026 is inarguably without jurisdiction and therefore, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed-in-part and Annexure-A dated 19.05.2026 is read down to be only a report filed with the fourth respondent [the jurisdictional Executive Officer] as contemplated under Rule 3(3) of 2011 Rules calling upon the fourth respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and all the concerned in the prescribed form and then decide on the controversy. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr