Karnataka High Court
Shri G V Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 7926 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 7424 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 8095 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 8543 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 8549 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
W.P.No.7926/2025
BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI. G.V. MANJUNATH
S/O VEERANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT. SITE NO. 7 AND 8
4TH CROSS RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY
BASAVANAGARA, 4TH CROSS
B-SECTOR, BENGALURU-560037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.
2
2. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER
TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND
EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KR PURAM DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE
BENGALURU- 560036.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. K.V. BATHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE
NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/23/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2
(ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
W.P.No. 7424/2025
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. TAMIL ARASI
W/O SATHYAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NO.22/A
RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY
BASAVANAGARA
4TH CROSS
B-SECTOR
BENGALURU-560037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.
2. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER
TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND
EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KR PURAM DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE
BENGALURU- 560036.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.R. JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE
NO. BBMP/KA.PA.AA/KRPURA/39/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2
(ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
W.P.No.8095/2025
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. PALANIAMMAL RAJA
W/O R. RAJA
4
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.31, 6TH CROSS
OPP. TATA SHERWOOD ROAD
RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY
BASAVANAGARA
B-SECTOR
BENGALURU-560037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.
2. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER
TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND
EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KR PURAM DIVISION
MAHADEVAPURA RANGE
BENGALURU- 560036.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE
NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/21/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2
(ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
W.P.No.8543/2025
BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI. N. SUNDARA MURTHY
S/O L.P. NAMBIAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
SITE NO.21/A, B SECTOR
RAMAIAHREDDY COLONY
BASAVANAGARA
BENGALURU-560037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.
2. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER
TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND
EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KR PURAM DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE
BENGALURU- 560036.
6
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
N. R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560002.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE
NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/37/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2
(ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
W.P.No.8549/2025
BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI. SHIVARAMAN .J
S/O R. JAGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.49, 4TH CROSS
B SECTOR, RAMAIAHREDDY COLONY
BASAVANAGARA
MARATHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
7
M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY.
2. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER
TANKS ENCROACHMENT AND
EVICTION EXECUTION ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KR PURAM DIVISION
MAHADEVAPURA RANGE
BENGALURU- 560036.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2024 BEARING REFERENCE
NO. BBMP/KA.PA.HA/KRPURA/29/HAL/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2
(ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
8
C.A.V. ORDER
Since common issue is involved in all these petitions,
they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common
order.
2. This petition is filed assailing the show cause
notice dated 29.11.2024 issued by a competent authority
under the provisions of the Karnataka Tank Conservation
and Development Authority Act, (for short "Act, 2014").
3. The petitioners claim ownership over a
residential properties forming part of Sy.No.158/2AB of
Vibhuthipura Village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
In support of their claim, the petitioners rely on registered
sale deeds, produced at Annexure-A to the writ petitions.
Photographs evidencing the construction of residential
houses have been submitted. To further substantiate
possession and ownership, the petitioners have produced
the Katha certificate, showing the petitioners' name
9
recorded in the BBMP property register, along with tax paid
receipts.
4. Based on a complaint lodged by the Tahsildar,
the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force Police registered an
FIR in Crime No.129/2013 under Sections 192A and
192B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Consequent to
the constitution of a Special Court under the Karnataka
Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short "Act, 2011"),
the matters now stand transferred to the jurisdiction of the
said Special Court.
5. In light of the above circumstances, the
petitioners have challenged the impugned show cause
notice dated 29.11.2024, issued by respondent
No.2 (Annexure-E). The core grievance is that the matter
is sub judice before the Special Court constituted under the
Act, 2011, and therefore, the initiation of parallel
proceedings under the Act, 2014 is legally unsustainable.
10
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly
urged that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2
under the provisions of the Act, 2014 are impermissible in
view of the pending criminal proceedings before the Special
Court. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on
the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.
No.20428/2022, wherein similar notices issued by the
Tahsildar were quashed on the ground that the matter was
pending before the Land Grabbing Court.
7. In response, learned counsel for the BBMP
contends that respondent No.2, being the Prescribed
Officer under the Act, 2014, is statutorily empowered
under Section 22 to initiate action for eviction of
unauthorized occupants from tank land. Refuting the
petitioners' reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision, the
BBMP's counsel cites the second proviso to Section 9(7) of
the Act, 2011, and further invokes Section 25 of the Act,
2014. It is argued that the Act mandates the Prescribed
11
Officer to report and remove encroachments from tank
lands, and any failure to discharge this obligation attracts
penal consequences under Section 25 of the Act, 2014.
8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions
and perused the material placed on record. Upon
examination of the statutory framework under both the Act,
2014 and the Act, 2011, this Court finds it appropriate to
address the interplay between these enactments.
9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Section
16 of the Act, 2011 provides that its provisions shall prevail
in the event of any inconsistency with other laws. The
overriding effect of the Act, 2011 is thus statutorily
recognized. Section 16 of the Act, 2011 reads as under:
" 16. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of
this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or
decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or
authority."
12
10. Similarly, Section 47 of the Act, 2014 deals with
the effect of the Act on other laws. In order to appreciate
the legislative intent and the interplay between the two
statutes, it is necessary to extract Section 47 of the Act,
2014, which reads as under:
" 47. Effect of other laws.- (1) Subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act
and the rules and regulations made thereunder shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any enactment other than this Act.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person
from being prosecuted and punished under any other law
for the time being in force for any act of omission, which
also constitutes an offence under this Act, or from being
liable under such other law to any higher punishment or
penalty other than that provided in this Act or the rules
made thereunder:
Provided that no person shall be punished twice for
the same offence."
11. This Court also deems it fit to cull out the second
proviso to Sub-Section (7) of Section 9 of the Act, 2011,
which reads as under:
"2(7) - xxxx
13
xxxx
Provided further that where the custodian of
evacuee property objects to the Special Court taking
cognizance of the case, the Special Court shall not
proceed further with the case in regard to such property:
Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a
notice of taking cognizance of the case under the Act,
served on any person known or believed to be interested
in the land, after a summary enquiry to satisfy itself
about the persons likely to be interested in the land."
(Emphasis Supplied by me)
12. On a careful analysis of the second proviso to
Sub-Section (9) of Section 7 of the Act, 2011, which has
been extracted above, this Court is of the considered view
that despite both enactments namely, the Act of 2011 and
the Act of 2014 containing non obstante clauses, the said
second proviso carves out a clear legislative intent to permit
parallel remedial action under any other law even when
proceedings are initiated under the Act, 2011. In that
context, Section 47 of the Act, 2014 assumes relevance. It
also contains a non obstante clause and states in
unequivocal terms that the provisions of the Act, 2014 shall
14
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
in any other law for the time being in force.
13. Thus, in view of the second proviso to Section
7(9) of the Act, 2011, read with Section 47 of the Act,
2014, this Court finds that the Prescribed Officer,
i.e., respondent No.2, duly appointed under the provisions
of the Act, 2014, is legally empowered to initiate an
independent enquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner is
in unauthorized occupation of tank land. If, after conducting
such enquiry and affording the petitioner a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, it is found that the petitioner
has indeed encroached upon tank land, respondent No.2,
being the competent statutory authority, is well within his
powers to proceed to summarily evict the petitioner in
accordance with Section 22 of the Act, 2014.
14. Furthermore, the legislative framework under
the Act, 2014 ensures adequate checks and balances.
15
Section 25 of the said Act specifically provides that if the
Prescribed Officer is found to have failed in discharging his
duties or has acted in dereliction thereof, he shall be liable
to departmental enquiry and may also be subjected to a
monetary penalty of Rs.10,000/-. This provision reinforces
that the authority entrusted with such powers is not left
unchecked and is answerable for omissions and
commissions while discharging his responsibilities.
15. In the above context, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench in W.P. No.20428/2022, heavily relied upon by the
petitioners, does not assist the petitioners' case. Notably,
the Co-ordinate Bench, in that case, appears to have not
examined the second proviso to Section 7(9) of the Act,
2011, which expressly enables authorities to take action
under other enactments notwithstanding the pendency of
proceedings before the Special Court. It is also evident from
the facts of that case that the action therein was initiated
16
by the Tahsildar under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act. In contrast, the present proceedings
are not under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act but are
initiated by the Prescribed Officer under the Act, 2014,
which provides for a distinct remedial mechanism. Hence,
the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the cited
judgment is distinguishable and has no application to the
facts of the present cases.
16. Although the petitioners have contended that
the Act, 2011 alone governs the dispute and that
proceedings under any other statute are barred due to the
matter being sub judice before the Special Court, such an
interpretation does not hold merit. It is true that Sections 3
to 5 of the Act, 2011 provide for penal consequences for
land grabbing, including prosecution and punishment.
However, the Act, 2011 does not expressly provide a
mechanism for summary eviction of unauthorized occupants
from the encroached land. The process is criminal in nature
17
and ends with adjudication of land grabbing and conviction,
but no express procedural remedy is contemplated for
immediate or administrative removal of encroachments.
17. Conversely, the Act, 2014, particularly
under Section 22 of the Act, 2014, provides a
comprehensive remedial procedure that empowers the
Prescribed Officer to summarily evict any person found to
be in unauthorized occupation of tank land, thereby
enabling swift and effective conservation of public tank
resources.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the clear opinion that the petitioners' argument that the
pendency of proceedings before the Special Court under the
Act, 2011 renders the present proceedings under the Act,
2014 sub judice is both misconceived and untenable. The
statutory scheme, especially in light of the second proviso
to Section 7(9) of the Act, 2011, explicitly permits
18
proceedings under other enactments. Therefore, the
initiation of proceedings by respondent No.2 under the Act,
2014 is perfectly within the bounds of law and does not
suffer from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, no interference
is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
19. For the reasons stated supra, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB