Karnataka High Court
Smt. Hombalamma vs The Chief Executive Officer And The ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 26364 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. HOMBALAMMA
W/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
2. SRI. APPAJI,
S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUTHEGERE POST, BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571416.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. NITHISH., ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THE APPALLENT AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA,
MANDYA DISTRICT- 571401.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
TALUK PANCHAYATH, MANDYA,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401.
3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BASARALU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
BASARALU, MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571416.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. SRI. K.C. SHIVARAMU,
S/O LATE CHIKKE GOWDA,
KODAGAHALLI, MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571416.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA.,ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. BOPPANNA BELLIYAPPA., AGA FOR R5 & R6
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
13.02.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN APPEAL NO.19/2024-
25 AT ANNEXURE K AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.01.2026, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
quashing the impugned order dated 13.02.2025
passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal no.19/2024-
25 at Annexure K,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
B. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
quashing the impugned order dated 30.07.2025
passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal No. MDYZP-
DEV00THS:1/2025 at Annexure P
C. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
quashing the impugned Notice dated 21.08.2025
issued by respondent no.3 bearing No. GRA
PUM//2025-2026 at Annexure S
D. Grant such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in
the interest of justice and equity."
2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the absolute owner of a
house property situated at Kodagahalli Village,
BasaraluHobli, Mandya Taluk and District, in respect
of which an E-Khatha bearing
No.152100404801220007 has been issued by the
competent authority. According to the petitioner, the
said property is ancestral in nature, and the family of
the petitioner has been in continuous possession and
enjoyment of the property for more than eighty
years. It is contended that the revenue records as
well as the municipal records recognise the
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's family
over the said property.
3. Petitioner No.2 similarly claims to be the absolute
owner of property bearing Site No.6/6, situated at
Kodagahalli Village, BasaraluHobli, Mandya Taluk and
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
District. It is contended that the said property is also
ancestral property, originally belonging to the
grandfather of petitioner No.2, namely Patel
Javaregowda, S/o Patel Kalegowda. According to
petitioner No.2, upon the demise of his father and
grandfather, he has succeeded to the property by
way of inheritance and has been in lawful possession
and enjoyment of the same.
4. The petitioners contend that they are the absolute
owners in possession and enjoyment of their
respective properties. It is alleged that respondent
No.4, who according to the petitioners has no right,
title or interest in the said properties, has been
interfering with their peaceful possession and
enjoyment. In that background, the petitioners
instituted a suit in O.S. No.210/2022 before the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, seeking
appropriate reliefs to protect their possession.
5. The Trial Court, upon considering the pleadings and
the material placed on record, by order dated
14.03.2022, granted an order of temporary
injunction, restraining respondent No.4 and his
agents from interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the petitioners' properties during
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the pendency of the suit. The petitioners contend
that the said order continues to be in force and the
civil dispute between the parties is presently pending
adjudication before the competent civil court.
6. It is further contended that respondent No.4 claims
ownership over land bearing Sy. No.34/3 measuring
34 guntas, situated at Kodagahalli Village,
BasaraluHobli, Mandya Taluk and District, which is
stated to be adjacent to the properties claimed by
the petitioners. According to the petitioners,
respondent No.4, asserting that the petitioners have
encroached upon a portion of the said land, made
representations before the Panchayat authorities
seeking removal of the alleged encroachment.
Respondent No.4 thereafter approached this Court by
filing W.P. No.18300/2022.
7. This Court, by order dated 04.07.2024 in the said
writ petition, directed the Panchayat Development
Officer (respondent No.3) to consider the
representation submitted by respondent No.4 in
terms of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and
Encroachment) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to
as "the 2011 Rules") and to forward the same to
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the competent authority, namely the Executive
Officer, Taluk Panchayat, within a period of fifteen
days. The Executive Officer was further directed to
consider the representation after issuing notice to
the parties under Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
8. The petitioners contend that pursuant to the said
directions, the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat
(respondent No.2), without conducting a proper spot
inspection, without holding any enquiry, and without
recording the evidence of the parties, proceeded to
pass the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 in Appeal
No.19/2024-2025, directing removal of the alleged
encroachment said to have been made by the
petitioners.
9. It is further contended that even prior to the passing
of the impugned order, the Panchayat Development
Officer (respondent No.3) had submitted a report
dated 20.03.2023 to the Executive Officer stating
that the disputed land does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Grama Panchayat and that
complaints relating to such lands falling within
gramathana limits cannot be treated as
encroachments upon Government land. According to
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the petitioners, the said report clearly indicated that
the Panchayat authorities lacked jurisdiction to
initiate proceedings under the 2011 Rules.
10. Aggrieved by the order directing removal of
encroachment, the petitioners initially approached
this Court in W.P. No.7693/2025. This Court, by
order dated 18.03.2025, disposed of the said writ
petition granting liberty to the petitioners to file an
appeal before the competent Appellate Authority
within ten days, while keeping the order directing
removal of encroachment in abeyance.
11. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners preferred an appeal
in Appeal No.1/2025 before respondent No.1 - the
Appellate Authority. However, according to the
petitioners, respondent No.1, without properly
appreciating the factual and legal contentions raised
by them and without adverting to the jurisdictional
issue raised by the petitioners, dismissed the appeal
by order dated 30.07.2025. It is challenging the said
appellate order that the petitioners have approached
this Court in the present writ petition seeking the
reliefs set out in the petition.
12. Sri K N Nithin, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that:
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
12.1. The ownership and possession of the petitioners
over their respective properties is not in
dispute. According to him, the petitioners have
never encroached upon any Government road
nor constructed any structure on Government
land, as alleged by respondent No.4.
12.2. These aspects have not been properly
examined or appreciated by the authorities
while passing the impugned orders. Learned
counsel further submits that the Khatha
certificate and the demand register maintained
by the Panchayat authorities recognise the
properties of the petitioners, though the said
documents may not specifically disclose the
exact measurement of the property.
12.3. Elaborating further, learned counsel submits
that the Khatha certificate as well as the
demand register clearly indicate that the
northern boundary of the petitioners' properties
is a road. This, according to him, clearly
establishes that the petitioners' properties
extend up to the said road. The road continues
to exist in its original form, and there has been
no encroachment upon the said road by the
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
petitioners. It is therefore contended that there
is no intervening land between the petitioners'
properties and the road that can be claimed as
Government land which the petitioners are
alleged to have encroached upon.
12.4. The usage of the expression "gramathana land"
by the respondents is wholly misconceived.
According to him, the term gramathana
ordinarily refers to sites or lands situated within
the village habitation area designated for
residential or non-agricultural purposes. In the
present case, the lands belonging to the
petitioners are agricultural lands, and therefore
the concept of gramathana land is wholly
inapplicable to the petitioners' properties.
12.5. The lands belonging to the petitioners are
neither Government lands nor lands belonging
to the Gram Panchayat. Even assuming that the
lands fall within the limits of a gramathana, the
same cannot automatically be treated as
Government land. According to him, the
petitioners are private individuals who have
inherited the properties through their
predecessors, and therefore the lands in
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
question are private lands and cannot be
treated as Government property by the
authorities.
12.6. The petitioners have already instituted a civil
suit in O.S. No.210/2022 before the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya,
seeking protection of their possession against
respondent No.4. In the said suit, the civil court
has granted an order of temporary injunction
restraining respondent No.4 from interfering
with the petitioners' possession. According to
him, the existence of the said injunction order
has not been taken into consideration by the
authorities while passing the impugned orders,
which vitiates the decision-making process.
12.7. In matters relating to identification of property,
boundaries always prevail over measurements
or survey numbers. The Khatha certificate and
the demand register clearly disclose that the
northern boundary of the petitioners' properties
is the road, and therefore the lands extending
up to the road must necessarily be treated as
belonging to the petitioners. He submits that
merely because a portion of land is vacant, it
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
cannot be presumed to be Government land.
According to him, the vacant portion of land
also belongs to the petitioners, and it is on this
land that the petitioners have constructed a
cattle shed for the purpose of housing their
cattle.
12.8. The initial allegation against the petitioners was
that they had encroached upon the road itself.
However, the survey report subsequently
produced clearly establishes that there has
been no encroachment upon the road. Having
accepted that the road itself has not been
encroached upon, it cannot now be contended
that the land beyond the road constitutes
gramathana land or Government land allegedly
encroached upon by the petitioners. According
to him, these two contentions are mutually
destructive and cannot stand together.
12.9. The spot inspection report relied upon by the
authorities has been prepared in violation of the
principles of natural justice. According to him,
no prior notice was issued to the petitioners
regarding the proposed inspection, nor were
the petitioners afforded an opportunity to
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
remain present during the inspection or to place
their objections. The report having been
prepared behind the back of the petitioners, the
same cannot be relied upon to sustain the
impugned orders.
12.10. He relies upon the decision of Jagmittar Sain
Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services,
Haryana and Others1, more particularly,
paras 7 to 9 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference.
7. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that
conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and
it can neither be conferred with the consent of the
parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court
passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the
matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes
to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised
at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court
or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/
inexecutable once the forum is found to have no
jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently
lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should
not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate,
defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot
derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such
eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply.
(Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their
Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal
Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios
(P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios &Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537;
1
2013 INSC 459
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
and KondibaDagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar
& Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).
8. In Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra
(Dead) Thr. Lrs., (1990) 1 SCC 193, this Court, after
placing reliance on large number of its earlier
judgments particularly in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v.
K.S. Wadke & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 496; Kiran Singh v.
Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; and Chandrika
Misir &Anr. v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391 held, that
a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram
non judice; when a special statute gives a right and
also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights,
remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of
that Act and the Common Law Court has no
jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and
enforces the performance in specified manner,
"performance cannot be forced in any other manner."
9. Law does not permit any
court/tribunal/authority/forum to usurp jurisdiction on
any ground whatsoever, in case, such a authority does
not have jurisdiction on the subject matter. For the
reason that it is not an objection as to the place of
suing;, "it is an objection going to the nullity of the
order on the ground of want of jurisdiction". Thus, for
assumption of jurisdiction by a court or a tribunal,
existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition
precedent. But once such jurisdictional fact is found to
exist, the court or tribunal has power to decide on the
adjudicatory facts or facts in issue. (Vide: Setrucharlu
Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of Jeypore,
AIR 1919 PC 150; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar
Chimanlal Barot &Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664; Harshad
Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. &Anr., AIR
2005 SC 4446; and Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy
Swaminathan & Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
12.11. By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat's,
he submits that jurisdiction cannot be assumed
by an authority unless such jurisdiction is
expressly conferred by statute. According to
him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that conferment of
jurisdiction is a legislative function, and neither
consent of parties nor conduct of the parties
can confer jurisdiction upon an authority that
inherently lacks the same. If an authority
passes an order without jurisdiction, such an
order would be void ab initio and a nullity in the
eye of law, and the defect goes to the very root
of the matter.
12.12. The jurisdiction exercised by the Panchayat
authorities in the present matter is itself
without authority of law, inasmuch as the land
in question is neither Government land nor
Panchayat land. According to him, proceedings
under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal
of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011
can be invoked only when there is an
encroachment upon Government land,
Panchayat property or public property. In the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
present case, when the lands admittedly belong
to the petitioners and the dispute is essentially
a private boundary dispute between
neighbouring landowners, the Panchayat
authorities could not have assumed jurisdiction
under the said Rules.
12.13. The report submitted by the Panchayat
Development Officer dated 20.03.2023 itself
records that the disputed property does not fall
within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat.
Once such a finding had been recorded by the
competent officer, the Executive Officer could
not have proceeded further to direct removal of
alleged encroachment, since the very
jurisdictional fact required for exercise of power
was absent.
12.14. The impugned proceedings suffer from lack of
jurisdiction at the threshold, and any order
passed in the absence of such jurisdiction is
liable to be treated as non est in the eye of law.
Placing reliance on the principle laid down in
JagmittarSain Bhagat, he submits that an
order passed by an authority lacking
jurisdiction cannot be sustained merely because
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the authority proceeded to examine the merits
of the matter.
12.15. On that basis, he submits that the impugned
orders passed by respondent No.2 as well as
the appellate order passed by respondent No.1
are liable to be quashed, since the very
initiation of proceedings under the 2011 Rules
was without jurisdiction. According to him, the
dispute, if any, between the petitioners and
respondent No.4 is purely civil in nature, and
the parties would have to work out their
remedies before the competent civil court.
12.16. He relies upon the decision of Smt.Gowramma
and Others Vs. The Chief Executive Officer
2
and Others , more particularly, para 7
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference.
7. Since the petition schedule property is being
claimed by the respondent-Panchayat, action in this
regard has to be taken in the manner set out in the
statute, namely, Section 211 of the Act. Admittedly,
no such proceedings have been initiated in the
present case. Rule 3 presupposes Obstruction And
Encroachment of the Panchayat property. It also
2
W.P.No.1340/2021 dated 29.11.2022
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
presupposes there being no dispute by the
encroacher, which is not the case in the instant
petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they are
in possession and enjoyment of the property on their
own right since time immemorial and that there is no
encroachment and the property does not belong to
the Panchayat. This being the contentious issue the
respondent-authority ought to have initiated the
proceedings under Section 211 of the Act and only
after determining matter could have proceeded to
pass the impugned resolution, notices and the order
as the case may be.
12.17. By relying on Gowrammahe submits thatthe
ratio laid down therein clearly indicates that
proceedings under the Karnataka Panchayat
Raj (Removal of Obstruction and
Encroachment) Rules, 2011 can be invoked
only in cases where the land in question is
admittedly Panchayat property and there is an
undisputed encroachment upon such property.
In cases where title to the property itself is
disputed, the Panchayat authorities cannot
invoke the summary procedure contemplated
under the said Rules.
12.18. When the Panchayat itself claims that the
property belongs to it and the alleged
encroacher disputes the same, the authorities
are required to initiate proceedings under
Section 211 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
and determine the issue in accordance with the
procedure prescribed therein. Only after such
determination of title or ownership can any
consequential action relating to removal of
encroachment be undertaken.
12.19. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of
the present case, learned counsel submits that
the petitioners have categorically asserted their
ownership and possession over the property in
question and have also produced documentary
material such as Khatha certificates, demand
register entries and other records evidencing
their possession and enjoyment. Therefore, the
question as to whether the land belongs to the
petitioners or constitutes Panchayat land is
itself a seriously disputed question of fact and
title.
12.20. In such circumstances, according to him, the
authorities could not have invoked the
summary procedure contemplated under Rule 3
of the 2011 Rules, which presupposes the
existence of Panchayat property and a clear
case of encroachment. Instead, the authorities
ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
under Section 211 of the Act for adjudication of
the dispute relating to ownership and
possession.
12.21. Learned counsel therefore submits that the
impugned proceedings initiated under the 2011
Rules are wholly unsustainable, as the
authorities have bypassed the statutory
mechanism contemplated under Section 211 of
the Act for determination of disputed claims
relating to Panchayat property.
12.22. On these grounds, he submits that the
impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 as
well as the appellate order passed by
respondent No.1 are liable to be quashed,
reserving liberty to the parties to work out their
remedies before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
12.23. He relies upon the decision of Chief Executive
Officer and other Vs. Smt. Gowramma and
others3, more particularly, paras 3 and 4
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference.
3
W.A.No.144/2023 dated 04.09.2023
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant - Zilla Panchayat and we have perused
the Appeal papers. We do not find any reason to
grant indulgence in the matter firstly because, the
Appellant - Panchayat had failed to any material to
vouch its title to the subject property by instituting
proceedings under Section 211(1) of the 1993 Act
which has the following text:
"(1) In any village to which a survey of lands other
than lands ordinarily used for the purposes of
agriculture only has been or shall be extended under
any law for the time being in force, where any
property or any right in or over any property is
claimed by or on behalf of the Grama Panchayat, or
by any person as against the Grama Panchayat, it
shall be lawful for the Assistant Commissioner after
enquiry of which due notice has been given, to pass
an order deciding the claims."
The above language of the provision makes it
abundantly clear that where encroachment of
Panchayat property is sought be removed, the
enquiry has to be held by the Assistant Commissioner
with the participation of the Panchayat concerned and
the other stakeholders. In such a proceeding, the
Panchayat can produce the essential material to
vouch its title to the property. This enquiry has not
happened before issuing the order that was
challenged in the Writ Petition. Even otherwise,
nothing prevented the subject Panchayat to place on
record in the subject proceedings such material when
it was claiming to be the owner of the property in
question.
4. We are not impressed by the submission of
learned Panel Counsel for the Appellant - Panchayat
that the impugned order is voilative of the provisions
of Rule 3of 2011 Rules which read as under:
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
"The Panchayat Development Officer or the Village
Accountant shall if it appears to him that a person
who is not duly authorized has caused obstructions
and encroachments of Gram Panchayat / Poramboke
land, public street, place, waste land, ponds, tanks,
play ground, parks, public utility lands, cremation
grounds or grave yards or in or over or upon any
open drain, gutter, sewer or aqueduct in such street
or place or in any open site not being private
property and the person building or setting up of
encroachment or has removed earth, sand other than
sand used for and (2) of Section 72of the Act Suo
motu send a report and necessary documents to the
Competent Authority at the earliest and not later
than fifteen days from the date of knowledge of such
obstructions and encroachments".
The above provisions are wider texts of section 211
of 1993 Act; they speak of the Competent Authority
and the proceedings are initiated before him by the
Panchayat Development Officer or the jurisdictional
Village Accountant. The procedural formalities also
have been prescribed for operating the said
provision. We fail to understand how the impugned
order of the learned Single Judge can be said to have
been made in breach of this Rule.
12.24. By relying on the Division Bench of this court in
Gowramma, he submits that the law has been
clearly laid down that when a Panchayat claims
that a particular property belongs to it and
alleges encroachment by a private party, the
Panchayat must first establish its title to the
property by initiating proceedings under
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Section 211 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
Act.
12.25. The Division Bench has categorically observed
that Section 211 of the Act provides the
statutory mechanism for adjudication of rival
claims relating to Panchayat property, and such
an adjudication must be carried out by the
Assistant Commissioner after holding an
enquiry and after providing due notice and
opportunity to all stakeholders.
12.26. According to him, only after such an enquiry
determining the question of ownership and the
rights of the parties can any further action
relating to removal of encroachment be
initiated. Without such adjudication, the
Panchayat authorities cannot assume that the
land in question belongs to the Panchayat and
proceed to remove alleged encroachments.
12.27. The Division Bench has also clarified that Rule 3
of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of
Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011
cannot be invoked independently when the very
title to the land is disputed. The said Rule
presupposes the existence of Panchayat
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
property and a clear case of encroachment, and
therefore cannot be invoked where the alleged
encroacher disputes the Panchayat's ownership.
12.28. In the present case, according to learned
counsel, the petitioners have categorically
disputed that the property belongs either to the
Panchayat or to the Government, and have
asserted their own title and possession over the
land. Therefore, the authorities were required
to first establish the Panchayat's claim through
proceedings under Section 211 of the Act.
12.29. Admittedly no such proceedings under Section
211 of the Act have been initiated in the
present case, nor has any enquiry been
conducted by the Assistant Commissioner to
determine the competing claims of the parties.
12.30. In the absence of such determination of title,
the authorities could not have proceeded to
direct removal of the alleged encroachment
under the 2011 Rules, as the foundational
jurisdictional fact, namely that the land belongs
to the Panchayat, has not been established.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
12.31. The impugned orders passed by respondent
No.2 as well as the appellate order passed by
respondent No.1 are contrary to the law laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in
Chief Executive Officer vs. Smt.
Gowramma and are liable to be set aside.
12.32. On that basis, he submits that the impugned
proceedings deserve to be quashed, leaving it
open to the Panchayat authorities, if so
advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings
under Section 211 of the Act in accordance with
law for adjudication of the competing claims
relating to the property.
12.33. He relies upon the decision of Government of
Andhrapradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao
and Another4, more particularly, paras 8 and
9 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference.
8. It seems to us clear from these provisions that the
summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by
Section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the
Government only against persons who are in
unauthorised occupation of any land which is "the
4
1982 (2) SCC 134
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
property of the Government". In regard to property
described in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2,
there can be no doubt, difficulty or dispute as to the
title of the Government and, therefore, in respect of
such property, the Government would be free to take
recourse to the summary remedy of eviction provided
for in Section 6. A person who occupies a part of a
public road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the
like, is in unauthorised occupation of property which
is declared by Section 2 to be the property of the
Government and, therefore, it is in public interest to
evict him expeditiously, which can only be done by
resorting to the summary remedy provided by the
Act. But Section 6(1) which confers the power of
summary eviction on the Government limits that
power to cases in which a person is in unauthorised
occupation of a land "for which he is liable to pay
assessment under Section 3". Section 3, in turn,
refers to unauthorised occupation of any land "which
is the property of the Government". If there is a bona
fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to
any property, the Government cannot take a
unilateral decision in its own favour that the property
belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take
recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section
6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the
property under a bona fide claim or title. In the
instant case, there is unquestionably a genuine
dispute between the State Government and the
respondents as to whether the three plots of land
were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings
taken by the then Government of Hyderabad and
whether the Osmania University, for whose benefit
the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost
title to the property by operation of the law of
limitation. The suit filed by the University was
dismissed on the ground of limitation, inter alia, since
Nawab Habibuddin was found to have encroached on
the property more than 12 years before the date of
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the suit and the University was not in possession of
the property at any time within that period. Having
failed in the suit, the University activated the
Government to evict the Nawab and his transferees
summarily, which seems to us impermissible. The
respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and
they cannot be evicted save by the due process of
law. The summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 is
not the kind of legal process which is suited to an
adjudication of complicated questions of title. That
procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law
for evicting the respondents.
9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary
remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted
to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very
recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was
also the view taken by the learned Single Judge
himself in another case which is reported in
Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. [(1970) 1 Andh
LT 88] which was affirmed by a Division Bench
[Meherunnissa Begum v. Govt. of A.P.AIR 1971 AP
382 : (1971) 1 Andh LT 292 : ILR 1972 AP 44] . It is
not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that
is conclusive of the question whether the summary
remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into
operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for
the decision of that question is more the nature of
the property on which the encroachment is alleged to
have been committed and the consideration whether
the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which
raise a bona fide dispute of title between the
Government and the occupant must be adjudicated
upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government
cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own
favour and evict any person summarily on the basis
of such decision. But duration of occupation is
relevant in the sense that a person who is in
occupation of a property openly for an appreciable
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a
bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial
adjudication according to the established procedure
of law.
12.34. By relying on Thummala Krishna Rao's case,
His submission is that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has clearly laid down that summary
proceedings for eviction can be invoked only
when the land in question is undisputedly
Government property and the person in
occupation is clearly an unauthorised occupant.
12.35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically
held that when there exists a bona fide dispute
regarding title to the property between the
Government and a private individual, the
Government cannot unilaterally assume
ownership and proceed to evict the person in
possession by resorting to summary
proceedings.
12.36. According to him, the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid decision is that questions relating to
disputed title cannot be adjudicated through
summary procedures meant for removal of
encroachments, since such procedures are
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
intended only for clear cases of unauthorised
occupation of Government land.
12.37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
observed that where a person is in possession
of the property for a considerable length of
time under a bona fide claim of right, such
possession itself gives rise to a prima facie
presumption that the dispute requires
adjudication before a competent civil court or
other appropriate forum following due process
of law.
12.38. Applying the said principle to the present case,
learned counsel submits that the petitioners
have categorically asserted their ownership and
possession over the land in question and have
also placed material on record in support of
their claim. Therefore, the dispute between the
petitioners and the Panchayat authorities is not
a simple case of encroachment upon
Government land but a bona fide dispute
relating to ownership and possession.
12.39. In such circumstances, according to learned
counsel, the authorities could not have invoked
the summary procedure under the Karnataka
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and
Encroachment) Rules, 2011, as the said
procedure is not intended for adjudicating
complex disputes relating to title.
12.40. Learned counsel therefore submits that the
impugned orders have been passed in disregard
of the settled principle of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thummala Krishna
Rao's case, which clearly mandates that where
a bona fide dispute regarding title exists, the
parties must be relegated to the ordinary
process of law and cannot be subjected to
summary eviction proceedings.
12.41. On that basis, he submits that the impugned
orders passed by respondent No.2 as well as
the appellate order passed by respondent No.1
are liable to be set aside, reserving liberty to
the parties to work out their rights before the
appropriate forum in accordance with law.
12.42. He relies upon the decision of
M.Sankaranarayanan Vs. Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore and Others5,
5
2017 (13) SCC 661
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
more, particularly, paras 19 and 20 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference.
19. Furthermore, a bare perusal of Section 67 clearly
indicates that it only applies to public roads, streets,
lanes, etc. or to such lands which are not the property
of individuals, or an aggregate of persons legally
capable of holding property. A dispute of title of
property between the State and individuals cannot be
decided in terms of Section 67. Merely because the
Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission
had, in his complaint, opined that the deed of
conveyance executed more than 100 years back was
fraudulently claimed to be in favour of the First
Princess, was not sufficient ground to proceed under
Section 67. It could not be held that all subsequent
transactions relating to the estate property were
fraudulent. Fraud must be pleaded and proved; it
cannot be presumed. Therefore, we are of the view
that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding
that the proceedings under Section 67 were without
jurisdiction. We are also of the view that the
proceedings are beyond the period of limitation.
20. The Division Bench of the High Court held that, in
terms of Section 67, the aggrieved parties can file
either a civil suit or an appeal against the order before
the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 49 of
the KLR Act. It did not decide the claim on merits. In
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, where the dispute regarding title has been
raised after more than 100 years and when there is
evidence to show that the land was bought for the
benefit of the First Princess, the allegation of fraud
cannot be believed, especially in view of the
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
contemporaneous evidence and the subsequent
acquisitions out of this very estate, both by the
Maharaja of Mysore before Independence and by the
State of Mysore after Independence. The notice being
without jurisdiction could be quashed in proceedings
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12.43. By relying on M.Sankaranarayanan's case,
he submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that statutory provisions
providing summary powers for removal of
encroachments can be invoked only in respect
of public property such as public roads, streets,
lanes or lands which do not belong to private
individuals.
12.44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified
that disputes relating to title between the State
and private individuals cannot be adjudicated
through summary proceedings under such
statutory provisions. According to him, where
there exists a serious dispute regarding
ownership of property, the authorities must
resort to the appropriate adjudicatory
mechanism available under law, and cannot
assume jurisdiction to decide such disputes
unilaterally.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
12.45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed
that allegations such as fraud or illegal
acquisition of property cannot be presumed
merely on suspicion, but must be specifically
pleaded and established through proper
adjudicatory proceedings. In the absence of
such proof, the authorities cannot invoke
summary statutory powers to disturb long-
standing possession of individuals.
12.46. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present
case, learned counsel submits that the
petitioners have categorically asserted their
title and possession over the property in
question, and therefore the dispute raised by
respondent No.4 and the Panchayat authorities
is essentially a title dispute which requires
adjudication through proper legal proceedings.
12.47. The authorities could not have invoked the
provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment)
Rules, 2011 to determine such disputed
questions of title, since the said provisions are
intended only for clear cases of encroachment
upon public property.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
12.48. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the
impugned proceedings initiated by the
authorities are without jurisdiction and contrary
to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in M. Sankaranarayanan's case.
12.49. The impugned orders passed by respondent
No.2 as well as the appellate order passed by
respondent No.1 deserve to be quashed,
reserving liberty to the parties, if so advised, to
work out their rights before the competent
forum in accordance with law.
12.50. On all the above basis, he submits that the writ
petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs
sought for be granted.
13. Sri Vishwanath N, learned counsel for respondent
No.4 submits that
13.1. Respondent No.4 is the absolute owner and is
in peaceful possession and enjoyment of land
bearing Sy.No.34/3 (new Nos.34/3A and
34/3B) measuring 34 guntas situated at
Kodagahalli Village, Mandya Taluk and District.
According to him, the revenue records in
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
respect of the said land stand in the name of
respondent No.4, and he has been regularly
paying land revenue and cultivating the land
personally. It is therefore submitted that
respondent No.4 has lawful title and possession
over the said property.
13.2. Towards the eastern side of the property
belonging to respondent No.4 there exists an
unnumbered gramathana land measuring
approximately one acre. According to him, a
public road runs through the said gramathana
land, which is used by the villagers and the
public at large to access their houses, schools,
temples and other public places. He submits
that the said road has been in existence from
time immemorial and has been continuously
used by the public.
13.3. Apart from the said road, there is no other
access or pathway available to reach the
property of respondent No.4 and other
adjoining lands. Therefore, according to him,
the road passing through the gramathana land
is of vital importance to the residents of the
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
village as well as to the landowners whose
lands lie beyond the said road.
13.4. Petitioner No.2 was earlier a member of the
Gram Panchayat, and by taking undue
advantage of his position, he is alleged to have
encroached upon the gramathana land reserved
for the public road. It is contended that the
petitioners have put up a shed measuring
approximately 60 feet by 50 feet by creating
certain documents in the Panchayat records in
the name of the mother of petitioner No.2,
namely petitioner No.1, in an unauthorised
manner, thereby encroaching upon the public
road meant for common use.
13.5. It is in the above background that respondent
No.4 had earlier instituted a civil suit in O.S.
No.468/2020 before the competent civil court,
in which the Court had granted an order of
injunction against the petitioners. Despite the
said order, according to him, the petitioners
continued their acts of encroachment by
constructing a temporary shed abutting the
property of respondent No.4 and obstructing
the public road.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
13.6. Respondent No.4 thereafter approached this
Court by filing W.P. No.18300/2022, wherein
this Court directed the Panchayat Development
Officer to consider the representation submitted
by respondent No.4 in terms of Sub-Rule (3) of
Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment)
Rules, 2011.
13.7. Pursuant to the said directions, the Panchayat
authorities conducted proceedings and passed
orders directing removal of the encroachment
made by the petitioners on the gramathana
land and the public road. The petitioners,
according to him, did not raise any effective
objection at the appropriate stage and
therefore the authorities proceeded to direct
removal of the shed constructed by them.
13.8. The petitioners challenged the said action by
filing an appeal before the Executive Officer of
the Taluk Panchayat, who, after examining the
matter, confirmed the action taken by the
Panchayat authorities and directed removal of
the encroachment. The petitioners thereafter
preferred a further appeal before the Chief
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat, who
also upheld the order of the Executive Officer
and dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioners.
13.9. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the
authorities have acted strictly in accordance
with law and in compliance with the directions
issued by this Court, and therefore the
impugned orders do not call for any
interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
13.10. His submission is that Section 211 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,
1993, (hereinafter referred to 'Panchayat Raj
Act' for short) debarred such filing of the
petition. Section 211 is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
"211. Decision of claims to property by or
against Grama Panchayat.- (1) In any village to
which a survey of lands other than lands ordinarily
used for the purposes of agriculture only has been or
shall be extended under any law for the time being
in force, where any property or any right in or over
any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Grama
Panchayat, or by any person as against the Grama
Panchayat, it shall be lawful for the Assistant
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Commissioner after enquiry of which due notice has
been given, to pass an order deciding the claims.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order made under
sub-section (1) may appeal to the Deputy
Commissioner and the decision of the Deputy
Commissioner shall be final.
(3) Any person shall be deemed to have had notice
of any enquiry or order under this section if notice
has been given in the prescribed manner."
13.11. Learned counsel further submits that the
reliance placed by the petitioners on Section
211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Panchayat Raj Act") is wholly
misplaced. According to him, Section 211
contemplates a situation where a dispute arises
regarding title to property between the Grama
Panchayat and a private individual, in which
event the matter is required to be adjudicated
by the Assistant Commissioner after conducting
an enquiry. In the present case, learned
counsel submits that no such dispute of title
arises between the Panchayat and the
petitioners, inasmuch as the property in
question is gramathana land reserved for public
use as a road, and the petitioners have merely
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
encroached upon the said land by putting up a
temporary structure.
13.12. In the present case the proceedings have not
been initiated independently by the Panchayat
authorities but pursuant to the directions issued
by this Court in W.P. No.18300/2022, wherein
this Court had directed the Panchayat
Development Officer to consider the
representation submitted by respondent No.4
under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and
Encroachment) Rules, 2011. According to him,
when such a direction had already been issued
by this Court to examine the alleged
encroachment, the authorities were justified in
proceeding under the 2011 Rules for removal of
encroachment, and therefore Section 211 of the
Panchayat Raj Act would have no application to
the facts of the present case.
13.13. The proceedings initiated by the Panchayat
authorities were strictly in compliance with the
directions issued by this Court and in
accordance with the statutory provisions
governing removal of encroachments on
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
gramathana land and public roads. On that
basis, he contends that the petitioners cannot
now seek to challenge the impugned orders by
contending that the authorities ought to have
resorted to proceedings under Section 211 of
the Act.
13.14. The direction having been issued by this Court
in W.P.No.18300/2022 to consider the
encroachment, Section 211 would not apply, is
his submission.
13.15. By their actions, the petitioners have
obstructed the access of respondent No.4 to his
property. It is in this background that
respondent No.4 had earlier instituted O.S.
No.468/2020, in which the competent civil
court had granted an order of injunction.
Considering the difficulties caused to
respondent No.4 due to the obstruction
allegedly created by the petitioners, this Court
in W.P. No.18300/2022 had directed the
Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) to
carry out a measurement of the property in
question. According to him, the measurement
having been carried out, it has clearly revealed
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
that there is an encroachment on the public
road, and therefore the same is required to be
removed.
13.16. Learned counsel further relies upon the daily
order dated 17.11.2023 passed in W.P.
No.18300/2022, wherein this Court, after
considering the report submitted pursuant to
the earlier order dated 26.10.2023, had
recorded that respondent Nos.9 and 10 in that
writ petition, who are none other than the
present petitioners, had encroached upon the
public road.
13.17. In the said proceedings, the petitioners
themselves had undertaken before this Court
that the encroachment would be removed. In
view of such an undertaking, according to him,
the petitioners cannot now be permitted to
contend that there was no encroachment at all.
13.18. Learned counsel further relies upon the daily
order dated 26.10.2023 passed in W.P.
No.18300/2022, whereby this Court had
directed the jurisdictional ADLR to conduct an
inspection of the road, measure its length and
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
width, and ascertain whether the road in
question is a public road.
13.19. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the
said direction, the ADLR had conducted the
inspection and submitted a report before this
Court.
13.20. Referring to the said report, learned counsel
submits that the area shown in three different
colours, namely green, blue and brown, has
been identified as part of the public road, which
has been encroached upon. According to him,
the report clearly establishes that the
structures put up by the petitioners fall within
the area forming part of the public road, and
therefore the same are liable to be removed.
13.21. The report submitted pursuant to the directions
issued in W.P. No.18300/2022 also identifies
encroachments marked in different colours such
as orange, green and pink. According to him,
the report discloses that there is an
encroachment of approximately ten feet in the
area marked in orange, an encroachment of
about three-fourths of a gunta in the area
marked in green, and an encroachment of
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
about one-fourth gunta in the area marked in
pink.
13.22. The encroachment having been clearly
established by the survey report, this Court
ought to dismiss the present writ petition and
direct the concerned authorities to remove the
encroachment made on the public road.
13.23. The petitioners have filed objections to the
inspection report contending that the ADLR did
not conduct the spot inspection in their
presence. According to the petitioners, when
the ADLR and other officials visited the property
on 13.10.2025, petitioner No.2 was indisposed
and petitioner No.1, who is an elderly person,
requested the officials to inform them in
advance of the date of the survey so that they
could take the assistance of their advocate and
a surveyor. It is contended by the petitioners
that no survey work was carried out on that
day, and yet a report has been filed which is
substantially similar to the earlier report
submitted in W.P. No.18300/2022.
13.24. Even the report produced pursuant to the
directions of this Court continues to bear the
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
number of W.P. No.18300/2022, and except for
certain changes in the colour markings, there is
no substantial variation in the contents of the
report. It is also pointed out that the report
does not bear the signatures of the petitioners,
and therefore, according to the petitioners, the
same cannot be relied upon by this Court.
13.25. Learned counsel submits that in view of the
rival contentions raised by the parties regarding
the correctness of the survey report, this Court
had appointed a Court Commissioner by order
dated 30.10.2025, who thereafter submitted his
report on 04.11.2025.
13.26. A perusal of the Court Commissioner's report
indicates that the Commissioner visited the
property bearing Gramathana No.6/76
measuring 91.87 square metres situated at
Kodagahalli Village, Basaralu Grama Panchayat,
Mandya District. The Commissioner verified the
physical extent of the property as well as the
cattle shed situated therein, in order to
ascertain whether the same corresponds with
the Khatha records produced by the petitioners,
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
and also placed on record the Google map of
the location.
13.27. The Commissioner visited the property on
01.11.2025 at about 11:15 a.m. and has
reported that the property consists of a
Mangalore tiled house measuring approximately
1652 square feet, a green-coloured AC sheet
structure measuring approximately 698.22
square feet, and a goat/cattle shed measuring
approximately 735.30 square feet.
13.28. The report further indicates that the goat/cattle
shed measures about 31.6 feet on the western
side and narrows towards the eastern side to
about 19.06 feet, excluding the drain. The
Commissioner has also recorded that the
distance between the goat/cattle shed and the
road situated on the northern side is
approximately eleven feet. Adjacent to the shed
there exists a drain measuring about one and a
half feet in width. The Commissioner has also
produced photographs, a sketch, the Google
map, and a screenshot from the Dishank
application in support of the observations made
in the report.
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
13.29. He relies upon the decision in Rajasthan State
Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond and
Gem Development Corporation Limited and
Another6, more particularly paras 15 and 16
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
15. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot-blow
cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate".
Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a
contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is
estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding
effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon
himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity,
however, it must not be applied in such a manner so
as to violate the principles of what is right and of good
conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao
[AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar ,
Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement , Pradeep
Oil Corpn. v. MCD, Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor
Resources (International) Co. Ltd., V. Chandrasekaran
v. Administrative Officer.
16. Thus, it is evident that the doctrine of election is
based on the rule of estoppel--the principle that one
cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The
doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the
species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel),
which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be
precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or
silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a
right which he would have otherwise had.
6
2013 (5) SCC 470
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
13.30. By relying on Diamond and Gem
Development Corporation Limited's, his
submission is that the petitioners, having
accepted enquiry under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3
of 2011 Rules cannot now question the same. It
would amount to approbating and reprobating,
which is not permissible.
13.31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the
well-settled principle that a party cannot be
permitted to approbate and reprobate, or in
other words, blow hot and cold in the same
breath. According to him, once a party has
accepted the benefits of an order or has taken
a particular stand before a court of law, such
party cannot subsequently take a contradictory
stand to the prejudice of the other side.
13.32. The petitioners had participated in the
proceedings before this Court in W.P.
No.18300/2022, and when the report regarding
the alleged encroachment was placed on
record, the petitioners had undertaken before
this Court that the encroachment would be
removed. Having made such a statement
before this Court, the petitioners cannot now be
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
permitted to turn around and contend that no
encroachment exists at all.
13.33. Learned counsel submits that such conduct on
the part of the petitioners would clearly attract
the doctrine of estoppel by election, which
prevents a party from asserting inconsistent
positions in successive proceedings.
13.34. According to him, the petitioners, having
accepted the findings recorded in the earlier
proceedings and having undertaken to remove
the encroachment, are estopped from
questioning the very existence of the
encroachment in the present writ petition.
13.35. The present writ petition is not only devoid of
merit but is also an attempt by the petitioners
to resile from the position earlier taken before
this Court, which cannot be permitted in view
of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Diamond and Gem
Development Corporation Limited's case.
13.36. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the
petition deserves to be dismissed with
appropriate directions to the concerned
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
authorities to remove the encroachment made
by the petitioners on the public road.
14. Sri M S Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that
14.1. The petitioners have failed to produce any
legally acceptable document of title evidencing
their ownership over the property in question.
According to him, except making a bald
assertion that the property is ancestral in
nature, the petitioners have not placed on
record any registered title deed, partition deed,
grant order, mutation entry, revenue record or
any other legally recognised document to
substantiate their claim of ownership.
14.2. The entire case of the petitioners rests primarily
upon Khatha entries and tax payment receipts,
which according to him cannot be treated as
documents of title. He submits that it is a
settled principle of law that Khatha certificates,
assessment extracts or entries in demand
registers maintained by local authorities are
only fiscal records prepared for the purpose of
assessment and collection of property tax, and
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
such entries do not confer or recognise
ownership over immovable property.
14.3. The Khatha relied upon by the petitioners
appears to have been issued without any
foundational title documents being produced
before the Panchayat authorities. According to
him, when a Khatha entry is created without
proper verification of title documents, the same
cannot be relied upon to establish lawful
ownership over the property.
14.4. The petitioners, having failed to produce any
title document demonstrating the origin of their
ownership, cannot assert that the property
belongs to them merely by claiming that it is
ancestral property. According to him, the
petitioners have not placed any material such
as genealogical records, revenue extracts or
earlier survey records which would indicate that
the property had devolved upon them through
inheritance.
14.5. The absence of such documentary evidence, the
claim of the petitioners that they are the
absolute owners of the property cannot be
accepted, particularly when the dispute relates
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
to gramathana land and public road land, which
are ordinarily vested in the Panchayat for the
benefit of the public.
14.6. The petitioners have failed to discharge the
basic burden of establishing their title, and the
writ petition is sought to be maintained on the
basis of documents which do not have any
evidentiary value for establishing ownership.
14.7. The material placed on record clearly
establishes that the petitioners have
encroached upon a portion of the public road
and have constructed a cowshed or cattle shed
on the said encroached portion. According to
him, the construction of such a structure on the
road area has resulted in obstruction to the free
use of the road by the villagers and other
members of the public.
14.8. The existence of the encroachment has been
clearly revealed through the survey and
inspection reports submitted by the competent
authorities, including the report of the Assistant
Director of Land Records (ADLR) as well as the
subsequent inspection carried out pursuant to
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the directions issued by this Court in W.P.
No.18300/2022.
14.9. According to him, the said reports identify the
exact extent of the encroachment on the public
road and demarcate the encroached portions
using different colour markings, thereby clearly
demonstrating that the structures put up by the
petitioners fall within the road area reserved for
public use.
14.10. When such encroachment upon a public road or
public property is established through official
survey records, the Panchayat authorities are
under a statutory obligation to remove the
obstruction and restore the road to its original
condition, so that the rights of the public at
large are protected.
14.11. The Panchayat authorities have initiated
proceedings strictly in accordance with the
Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of
Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011,
and the actions taken by them are pursuant to
the directions issued by this Court in the earlier
writ proceedings.
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
14.12. According to him, the authorities have
conducted inspections, obtained survey reports
and thereafter passed the impugned orders
directing removal of the encroachment, and
such action cannot be said to be arbitrary or
illegal.
14.13. The impugned orders passed by the Panchayat
authorities are lawful, justified and in
furtherance of the statutory duty cast upon
them to remove encroachments on public
property. The present writ petition is devoid of
merit and has been filed only with an intention
to prevent the removal of the encroachment
made by the petitioners on the public road.
14.14. On these grounds, he submits that this Court
ought not to interfere with the action taken by
the authorities, and the writ petition deserves
to be dismissed with appropriate directions
permitting the authorities to remove the
encroachment and restore the public road for
use by the villagers and the
15. Heard Sri K.N.Nithish, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Vishwanath N, learned counsel for
Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondent
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
No.4 and Sri M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the papers.
16. The points that would arise for consideration are as
under:
i) Whether the proceedings initiated by the
Panchayat authorities under the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction
and Encroachment) Rules, 2011 directing
removal of the alleged encroachment by
the petitioners are sustainable in law?
ii) Whether, in the facts of the present case,
the authorities could have exercised
powers under the 2011 Rules, or whether
the dispute raised by the petitioners
regarding ownership and possession of the
property required adjudication under
Section 211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj
and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993?
iii) Whether the material placed on record,
including the survey reports, inspection
reports and the Court Commissioner's
report, establish that the petitioners have
encroached upon gramathana land or a
public road?
iv) Whether the impugned order dated
13.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2
and the appellate order dated 30.07.2025
passed by respondent No.1 suffer from
jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity
or violation of the principles of natural
justice?
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
v) Whether the petitioners have established
any grounds warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India?
vi) What order?
17. I answer the above points as follows:
18. Answer to Point No. (i):Whether the
proceedings initiated by the Panchayat
authorities under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment)
Rules, 2011 directing removal of the alleged
encroachment by the petitioners are
sustainable in law?
18.1. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that both the
Petitioners are absolute owners in possession
and enjoyment of their respective properties
situated at Kodagahalli Village, BasaraluHobli,
Mandya Taluk and District. Petitioner No.1 is
the absolute owner of a house property in
respect of which an E-Khatha bearing
No.152100404801220007 has been issued by
the competent authority. Petitioner No.2 claims
to be the absolute owner of property bearing
Site No.6/6. Both properties are ancestral in
nature and the Petitioners' family has been in
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
continuous, open and peaceful possession and
enjoyment thereof for more than eighty years.
18.2. He submits that the Petitioners have never, at
any point of time, encroached upon any
Government road or constructed any structure
upon Government land as alleged by
Respondent No.4. The Khatha certificate and
the demand register maintained by the
Panchayat authorities recognise the properties
of the Petitioners. The northern boundary of the
Petitioners' properties, as clearly disclosed in
the Khatha certificate and the demand register,
is a road. This, according to learned counsel,
establishes that the Petitioners' lands extend up
to the said road, and the road continues to
exist in its original form without any
encroachment thereon.
18.3. Learned counsel submits that the usage of the
expression "gramathana land" by the
respondents is wholly misconceived and
misplaced. The term "gramathana" ordinarily
refers to sites or lands situated within the
village habitation area designated for
residential or non-agricultural purposes. The
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Petitioners' lands are ancestral properties which
have been in their possession for generations,
and the concept of gramathana land, as applied
by the respondents in the present proceedings,
has no application to the Petitioners' private
properties.
18.4. Sri. K.N. Nithish further submits that the lands
belonging to the Petitioners are neither
Government lands nor lands belonging to the
Gram Panchayat. Even if the said lands were to
fall within the limits of a gramathana, that fact
alone cannot render the lands Government
property. The Petitioners are private individuals
who have inherited the properties through their
predecessors in title. The disputed land is
private property in every sense, and no legal
basis exists for treating it as Government or
Panchayat land.
18.5. In support of the above contentions, learned
counsel relies upon the Report dated
20.03.2023 submitted by the Panchayat
Development Officer (Respondent No.3) to the
Executive Officer (Respondent No.2). In the
said report, the Panchayat Development Officer
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
categorically recorded that the disputed land
does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Grama Panchayat, and that complaints relating
to such lands within gramathana limits cannot
be treated as encroachments upon Government
land. He submits that when the Panchayat
Development Officer, who is the very authority
designated under Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules to
initiate proceedings, himself concluded that the
subject land does not fall within the
Panchayat's jurisdiction, the Executive Officer
could not have validly proceeded to direct
removal of the alleged encroachment.
18.6. Learned counsel further submits that the 2011
Rules can be invoked only in cases where there
is an encroachment upon Government land,
Panchayat property, or public property. The
2011 Rules have no application to disputes
between private landowners regarding the
boundaries of their respective private
properties. The present dispute is essentially a
private boundary dispute between the
Petitioners and Respondent No.4, and the
Panchayat authorities could not have assumed
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
jurisdiction over such a dispute by invoking the
2011 Rules.
18.7. He further contends that the spot inspection
report relied upon by the authorities was
prepared in violation of the principles of natural
justice. No prior notice was issued to the
Petitioners regarding the proposed inspection,
nor were the Petitioners afforded an
opportunity to remain present during the
inspection or to place their objections before
the inspecting officer. The report having been
prepared behind the back of the Petitioners,
without their knowledge and without affording
them any opportunity, the same cannot form
the foundation of the impugned orders.
18.8. Turning to the legal grounds, Sri. K.N. Nithish
relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and submits
that the conferment of jurisdiction is a
legislative function and cannot be conferred
either by consent of parties or by any superior
court. An order passed by an authority lacking
jurisdiction is void ab initio and a nullity in the
eye of law. The defect of want of jurisdiction
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
goes to the root of the matter and cannot be
cured by the conduct of the parties or by the
passage of time. According to learned counsel,
the Panchayat authorities lacked the
jurisdictional fact required for invoking the
2011 Rules, namely, that the subject land must
be Panchayat or Government property and not
private property, and therefore any proceeding
initiated by them is wholly without jurisdiction
and must be treated as a nullity.
18.9. Sri. K.N. Nithish relies upon the decision of a
co-ordinate bench of this Court in Smt.
Gowramma and Others and submits that this
Court has categorically held in the said decision
that Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules presupposes the
existence of Panchayat property and an
undisputed case of encroachment. The Rule
further presupposes that there is no dispute by
the encroacher. In cases where the alleged
encroacher disputes the character of the land
and asserts his own right and title, the
summary procedure under the 2011 Rules
cannot be invoked; instead, the authorities
must initiate proceedings under Section 211 of
the 2011 Rules to first determine the question
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
of ownership and possession before taking any
further action.
18.10. He further relies upon the Division Bench
decision of this Court in Smt. Gowramma
which affirmed the decision of the Learned
Single Judge and which held that where the
Panchayat claims that a particular property
belongs to it, the Panchayat must first establish
its title by initiating proceedings under Section
211 of the 2011 Rules. The Division Bench
further held that the proceedings before the
Assistant Commissioner under Section 211
must be conducted with the participation of the
Panchayat and other stakeholders, and only
after such determination of title can any
consequential action relating to removal of
encroachment be taken.
18.11. Sri. K.N. Nithish also relies upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of
Thummala Krishna Rao to contend that
summary proceedings for eviction can be
validly invoked only when the land in question
is undisputedly Government property and the
person in occupation is clearly an unauthorised
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
occupant without any bona fide claim to the
property. When there exists a genuine and
bona fide dispute regarding the title of the
Government or the Panchayat to the property,
the authorities cannot unilaterally decide the
question of ownership in their own favour and
proceed to remove the person in possession
through summary proceedings. The summary
procedure, by its very nature, is not suited for
adjudication of complicated questions of title,
which must be decided through the ordinary
and due process of law.
18.12. He also places reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.
Sankaranarayanan to contend that statutory
provisions conferring summary powers for
removal of encroachments apply only to public
roads, streets, lanes, and other lands that are
not the property of individuals or an aggregate
of persons legally capable of holding property.
A dispute of title between the State or
Panchayat and a private individual cannot be
decided through summary proceedings under
such provisions. When there is a serious and
genuine dispute regarding ownership, the
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
authorities must resort to the appropriate
adjudicatory mechanism and cannot invoke
summary statutory powers to disturb long-
standing possession of private individuals.
18.13. On the above grounds, Sri. K.N. Nithish
submits that the proceedings initiated under
the 2011 Rules are wholly unsustainable in law,
since the very precondition for the exercise of
powers under the said Rules, namely, that the
land must be Panchayat/Government property
and not private property, has not been
satisfied. The impugned orders passed pursuant
to such proceedings are liable to be quashed.
18.14. Sri. Vishwanath N., learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No.4, submits that Respondent
No.4 is the absolute owner and is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of land bearing
Survey No.34/3 (new Survey Nos.34/3A and
34/3B) measuring 34 guntas, situated at
Kodagahalli Village, Mandya Taluk and District.
The revenue records in respect of the said land
stand in the name of Respondent No.4 and he
has been regularly paying land revenue and
cultivating the land.
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
18.15. He submits that towards the eastern side of
Respondent No.4's property, there exists an
unnumbered gramathana land measuring
approximately one acre, through which a public
road runs. The said road has been used by the
villagers and the public at large for accessing
their houses, schools, temples, and other public
places from time immemorial. The road is the
only pathway available for Respondent No.4
and other adjoining landowners to access their
properties.
18.16. Sri. Vishwanath N. submits that Petitioner No.2,
who was earlier a member of the Gram
Panchayat, took undue advantage of his
position and encroached upon the gramathana
land reserved for the public road by
constructing a shed measuring approximately
60 feet by 50 feet. To legitimise this
encroachment, documents were created in the
Panchayat records in the name of Petitioner
No.1 (mother of Petitioner No.2) in an
unauthorised manner, and on the basis of such
documents, the Petitioners are claiming a right
to the encroached land.
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
18.17. He further submits that the present
proceedings under the 2011 Rules were not
initiated independently by the Panchayat
authorities but were initiated strictly pursuant
to and in compliance with the directions issued
by this Court in W.P. No.18300/2022, in which
this Court directed the Panchayat Development
Officer to consider the representation submitted
by Respondent No.4 under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule
3 of the 2011 Rules. According to learned
counsel, when this Court had already directed
that the proceedings be conducted under the
2011 Rules, it is impermissible for the
Petitioners to now challenge the very
jurisdiction of the Panchayat authorities to
conduct such proceedings.
18.18. Sri. Vishwanath N. relies upon the order dated
17.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.18300/2022 and submits that this Court,
after considering the inspection report
submitted by the ADLR, had recorded that the
Petitioners (respondent Nos.9 and 10 in that
writ petition) had encroached upon the public
road. He submits that the Petitioners
themselves gave an undertaking before this
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Court in W.P. No.18300/2022 that the
encroachment would be removed. Having made
such an undertaking before this Court, the
Petitioners cannot now turn around and
contend that no encroachment exists.
18.19. The survey report submitted by the ADLR
pursuant to the directions of this Court clearly
identifies the encroachment in colour-coded
portions on the map, quantifying the
encroachment as approximately ten feet in one
portion, three-fourths of a gunta in another
portion, and one-fourth of a gunta in yet
another portion. These findings conclusively
establish the existence of encroachment on the
public road.
18.20. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diamond and Gem
Development Corporation and submits that a
party cannot approbate and reprobate, i.e.,
blow hot and cold in the same breath. The
Petitioners, having accepted the findings
recorded in the earlier writ proceedings and
having undertaken to remove the
encroachment, are estopped from now
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
challenging the very existence of the
encroachment or the jurisdiction of the
Panchayat authorities. On these grounds, he
submits that the proceedings under the 2011
Rules are fully sustainable and the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
18.21. Sri. M.S. Devaraju, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the
Petitioners have failed to produce any legally
acceptable document of title to substantiate
their claim of ownership over the subject
property. Except for making a bare assertion
that the property is ancestral in nature, the
Petitioners have not placed on record any
registered title deed, partition deed, grant
order, mutation entry, or other legally
recognised document evidencing the origin of
their ownership. In the absence of such
foundational title documents, the claim of the
Petitioners to be absolute owners cannot be
accepted.
18.22. Sri. M.S. Devaraju further submits that the
Khatha certificates, assessment extracts, and
demand register entries relied upon by the
- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Petitioners are merely fiscal records prepared
for the purpose of assessment and collection of
property tax, and do not confer or recognise
ownership over immovable property. It is a
well-settled principle that Khatha entries cannot
be equated with title documents. The Khatha
relied upon by the Petitioners appears to have
been issued without any foundational title
documents being produced before the
Panchayat authorities.
18.23. He submits that the material placed on record
clearly establishes that the Petitioners have
constructed a cattle shed on a portion of the
public road, thereby obstructing the free use of
the road by the villagers and other members of
the public. The existence of the encroachment
has been established through the survey and
inspection reports, including the report of the
ADLR submitted pursuant to the directions of
this Court.
18.24. The Panchayat authorities have initiated
proceedings strictly in accordance with the
2011 Rules and in compliance with the
directions of this Court in W.P. No.18300/2022.
- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
The actions taken by the authorities pursuant
to such directions cannot be characterised as
arbitrary or illegal. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and has been filed only to prevent the
removal of the encroachment made by the
Petitioners on the public road.
18.25. Sri. Boppanna Belliyappa, learned Government
Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.5 and
6 (the Tahsildar and the ADLR, Mandya Taluk),
has not advanced any separate and
independent submissions in opposition to the
Petitioners' case. He has adopted the
submissions made by the other respondents
and has submitted that the authorities have
acted in accordance with their statutory
mandate. The ADLR submitted the inspection
report pursuant to the directions of this Court
in W.P. No.18300/2022 after conducting a
physical inspection of the subject property, and
the said report forms part of the record before
this Court.
18.26. This Court has carefully considered the
submissions of all the learned counsel and has
examined the material placed on record,
- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
including the impugned orders, the inspection
reports, the Court Commissioner's report, the
Khatha documents, and the relevant statutory
provisions. The primary question that falls for
consideration under this Point is whether the
proceedings initiated by the Panchayat
authorities under the 2011 Rules, culminating
in the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by
Respondent No.2 directing removal of the
alleged encroachment, are sustainable in law.
18.27. A plain and careful reading of Rule 3 of the
2011 Rules reveals that the power of the
Panchayat Development Officer or Village
Accountant under the 2011 Rules is triggered
only when it appears to him that a person who
is not duly authorised has caused obstruction or
encroachment upon -- (a) Gram Panchayat or
Poramboke land; (b) public street, place, waste
land, ponds, tanks, playground, parks, public
utility lands, cremation grounds, or graveyards;
(c) any open drain, gutter, sewer, or aqueduct
in such street or place; or (d) "any open site
not being private property." The Rule is explicit
in its exclusion of private property from its
purview by using the phrase "not being private
- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
property." This means that if the land in
question is, or is genuinely claimed to be,
private property, the 2011 Rules have no
application.
18.28. In the present case, the Petitioners have raised
a bona fide and genuine claim of private
ownership over the subject land. Petitioner
No.1 holds an E-Khatha bearing
No.152100404801220007, issued by the
competent Panchayat authority, in respect of a
property identified as Gramathana No.6/6 at
Kodagahalli Village. Petitioner No.2 similarly
claims to be the owner of the adjacent
property, which is described as ancestral
property that has devolved upon him through
inheritance from his grandfather, Patel
Javaregowda, and father. The demand register
and Khatha certificate issued by the Panchayat
itself record the northern boundary of the
Petitioners' properties as a road, which the
Petitioners contend establishes that their lands
extend up to the road.
18.29. The Court Commissioner, appointed by this
Court by order dated 30.10.2025, has
- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
confirmed in his report dated 04.11.2025 that
the property bearing Gramathana No.6/76,
measuring 91.87 square metres, comprises a
Mangalore-tiled house, an AC sheet structure,
and a goat/cattle shed, and that the distance
between the cattle shed and the northern road
is approximately eleven feet. This observation,
made by a neutral court-appointed authority,
lends credence to the Petitioners' claim that
their structures are situate within their property
and at a distance from the road.
18.30. Critically, the Panchayat Development Officer
(Respondent No.3), in his Report dated
20.03.2023, specifically recorded that the
disputed land does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Grama Panchayat and that
complaints relating to such lands within
gramathana limits cannot be treated as
encroachments upon Government land. This
report bears very great significance. Rule 3 of
the 2011 Rules designates the Panchayat
Development Officer as the authority who must
form an opinion that a person has encroached
upon Gram Panchayat or public land before
initiating proceedings.
- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
18.31. When the Panchayat Development Officer
himself, after examining the matter, recorded
the absence of the very jurisdictional fact
required for invoking the 2011 Rules, the
Executive Officer (Respondent No.2) ought to
have first addressed and either overruled or
accepted this finding before proceeding any
further. The impugned order dated 13.02.2025
does not even refer to the Report dated
20.03.2023, let alone offer any reasoned basis
for departing from the conclusions recorded
therein. This silence is itself a serious infirmity
in the impugned order.
18.32. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, has laid down the following
foundational principles of law regarding
jurisdiction:
18.32.1. Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative
function. Jurisdiction can neither be
conferred by the consent of the parties
nor by the order of a superior court. An
order passed by an authority having no
jurisdiction amounts to a nullity, and
- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
such a defect goes to the root of the
cause.
18.32.2. If a court or tribunal inherently lacks
jurisdiction, the acquiescence of a party
cannot perpetuate such lack of
jurisdiction. The doctrine of waiver also
does not apply in such cases.
18.32.3. A decree or order without jurisdiction is
coram non judice. The finding of such a
court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and
unenforceable once the forum is found to
have no jurisdiction.
18.32.4. For assumption of jurisdiction by a court
or tribunal, the existence of a
jurisdictional fact is a condition
precedent.
18.33. Applying the principle laid down in Jagmittar
Sain Bhagat to the facts of the present case:
The 2011 Rules vest jurisdiction in the
Panchayat authorities only in cases where the
land in question is Gram Panchayat,
Poramboke, or public land, and is not private
property. The existence of this jurisdictional
- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
fact, that the land is public/Panchayat property.
is a condition precedent for the exercise of
power under the 2011 Rules. In the present
case, the Petitioners have asserted their private
ownership and the Panchayat Development
Officer himself has recorded that the land falls
outside the Panchayat's jurisdiction. The
respondents have not established that the land
is, in fact, Panchayat or Government property
through any proper adjudicatory process. In
these circumstances, following the principle in
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, the proceedings
under the 2011 Rules are without jurisdiction
and the consequential orders directing removal
of the alleged encroachment must be treated as
nullities.
18.34. The decision of the coordinate bench of this
court in Smt. Gowramma and Others is
directly applicable to the facts of the present
case on all fours. Just as in Smt. Gowramma
(Single Bench), the Petitioners in the present
case are asserting that they are in possession
and enjoyment of the property on their own
right since time immemorial, that there is no
encroachment, and that the property does not
- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
belong to the Panchayat. In such
circumstances, the authorities ought not to
have invoked the summary procedure under
Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules but ought to have
initiated proceedings under Section 211 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,
1993 for proper adjudication of the competing
claims.
18.35. The Division Bench of this Court, in a writ
appeal arising from the single bench decision in
Smt. Gowramma, affirmed the position of law
laid down by the Learned Single Judge. The
Division Bench has held thatwhere
encroachment of Panchayat property is sought
to be removed, an inquiry must be held by the
Assistant Commissioner with the participation
of the Panchayat and other stakeholders, so
that the Panchayat can produce essential
material to vouch its title to the property. This
inquiry is mandated under Section 211 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,
1993.
18.36. The Division Bench declined to accept the
Panchayat's argument that the impugned order
- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
was in conformity with Rule 3 of the 2011
Rules, and affirmed that the provisions of Rule
3 cannot be independently pressed into service
when the very title to the land is disputed.
18.37. This judgment of the Division Bench is binding
upon this Court and is directly applicable to the
present case. The decision conclusively
establishes that when the character of a land,
whether it belongs to the Panchayat or to a
private individual, is disputed, the Panchayat
cannot resort to the summary procedure under
the 2011 Rules without first establishing its title
through Section 211 proceedings.
18.38. InThummala Krishna Raothe Hon'ble
Supreme Court, held that he summary remedy
for eviction can be resorted to by the
Government only against persons in
unauthorised occupation of property that is
undisputedly the property of the Government.
If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the
title of the Government to any property, the
Government cannot take a unilateral decision in
its own favour that the property belongs to it,
and on the basis of such decision take recourse
- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
to the summary remedy for eviction. The
summary remedy is not suited for adjudication
of complicated questions of title.
18.39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that
facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title
between the Government and the occupant
must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary
courts of law. The duration of occupation is
relevant in the sense that a person who is in
occupation of a property openly for an
appreciable length of time can be taken, prima
facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property
requiring an impartial adjudication.
18.40. The ratio of Thummala Krishna Rao, though
arising in the context of summary eviction from
Government property under a different statute,
enunciates a principle of universal application:
that summary proceedings for removal of
encroachments are not available when the title
to the land is bona fide disputed. This principle
is squarely applicable to proceedings under the
2011 Rules in the present case. The Petitioners
have been in possession of their ancestral
properties for over eighty years. Their claim to
- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the property is not frivolous or concocted, it is
supported by Khatha certificates and demand
register entries issued by the Panchayat itself.
The existence of a pending civil suit (O.S.
No.210/2022) in which the civil court has
granted a temporary injunction in the
Petitioners' favour further underscores the
genuineness of their claim. In these
circumstances, the Panchayat authorities could
not have unilaterally decided that the land
belongs to the Panchayat and proceeded to
remove the alleged encroachment through
summary proceedings.
18.41. In M. Sankaranarayanan the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, has held that the statutory
provision considered in that case applies only to
public roads, streets, lanes, and such lands as
are not the property of individuals, or of an
aggregate of persons legally capable of holding
property. A dispute of title between the State
and individuals cannot be decided through
proceedings under such a provision.
18.42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
proceedings under the provision in question
- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
were without jurisdiction, since the title to the
land was in dispute.
18.43. The principle in M. Sankaranarayanan is
directly analogous. Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules,
like the provision considered in M.
Sankaranarayanan, applies only to
public/Panchayat property and expressly
excludes private property. Once a genuine
claim of individual private ownership is raised,
the summary power under Rule 3 is
unavailable. The authorities in the present case
have wrongly invoked the 2011 Rules in
disregard of this basic principle.
18.44. Sri. Vishwanath N. has strongly urged that the
proceedings under the 2011 Rules are
sustainable because they were initiated
pursuant to and in compliance with the
directions of this Court in W.P. No.18300/2022.
This submission requires careful examination.
18.45. This Court, by order dated 04.07.2024 in W.P.
No.18300/2022, directed the Panchayat
Development Officer to consider the
representation submitted by Respondent No.4
under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules
- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
and forward it to the Executive Officer within
fifteen days. The Executive Officer was directed
to consider the representation after issuing
notice to the parties under Rule 4 of the 2011
Rules and to "pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law."
18.46. The expression "in accordance with law"
appearing in the direction of this Court is of
crucial significance. This Court, while directing
the authorities to act, did not and could not
have intended to dispense with the mandatory
legal requirements governing the exercise of
power under the 2011 Rules. The phrase "in
accordance with law" necessarily incorporates
the entire body of law applicable to the
situation, including the requirement that the
land must be established to be
Panchayat/Government property before
encroachment removal proceedings can
proceed, and including the requirement to
initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,
1993 when the character of the land is
disputed.
- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
18.47. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, jurisdiction is a
legislative function and cannot be conferred
even by a superior court. A direction by this
Court to an authority to exercise its statutory
power cannot enlarge the scope of that
statutory power or confer jurisdiction that the
statute itself does not vest in the authority. If
Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules does not apply to
private property or disputed land, a direction of
this Court to consider a representation under
Rule 3 does not make Rule 3 applicable to such
property.
18.48. Furthermore, the direction in W.P.
No.18300/2022 was issued at the instance of
Respondent No.4 who made a representation
alleging encroachment. The court's direction
was to examine the representation and take
action in accordance with law. Acting "in
accordance with law" in a situation where the
ownership of the land is disputed would require
the authorities to follow the Section 211 route,
as held by the Division Bench in Chief
Executive Officer Vs. Smt. Gowramma. The
- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
direction cannot be read as an authorisation to
bypass the mandatory statutory scheme.
18.49. On the submission of Sri. M.S. Devaraju
regarding the absence of title documents in the
Petitioners' hands: The absence of a registered
title deed does not automatically establish that
the land belongs to the Panchayat or the
Government. It is well recognised that in rural
India, particularly in respect of ancestral
properties, ownership is often evidenced
through continuous possession, revenue
records, Khatha entries, and other
documentary material, rather than registered
deeds. The Petitioners have produced Khatha
certificates and demand register entries in their
favour, issued by the Panchayat itself. These
documents are not conclusive proof of title but
they are prima facie evidence of long-standing
recognised possession. The question of whether
these documents are sufficient to establish title
is precisely the kind of question that must be
adjudicated through Section 211 proceedings or
through civil proceedings, it cannot be decided
unilaterally by the Panchayat through summary
encroachment removal proceedings.
- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
18.50. This Court also notes that the Civil Court (II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya) has
granted a temporary injunction in favour of the
Petitioners in O.S. No.210/2022, restraining
Respondent No.4 from interfering with the
Petitioners' possession. The existence of this
injunction order, granted by a competent civil
court after examining the pleadings and
materials, is a strong indicator that the
Petitioners' claim to possession and ownership
is not frivolous and that a prima facie case
exists in their favour. The Panchayat authorities
have entirely disregarded this civil court order
and proceeded to pass orders that directly
conflict with it. The impugned orders, to the
extent that they direct removal of structures
claimed to be within the Petitioners' property,
are prima facie in conflict with the civil court's
injunction order.
18.51. In this context, it is also necessary to address
the submission of Sri. Vishwanath N that
Respondent No.4 had filed an earlier civil suit in
O.S. No.468/2020 before the competent civil
court, in which an order of injunction had been
obtained against the Petitioners. The existence
- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
of O.S. No.468/2020 and the injunction
obtained therein was pressed into service to
contend that the encroachment by the
Petitioners was already judicially recognised in
some form. This submission is not acceptable
for the following reasons:
18.51.1. The nature, scope, and present status of
the injunction in O.S. No.468/2020 are
not elaborated upon in the submissions
placed before this Court. Whether the
injunction in O.S. No.468/2020 relates to
the same property and the same
dispute, and whether it is still in force, is
not clear from the material before this
Court.
18.51.2. More importantly, even if an injunction
was granted in O.S. No.468/2020 at
some prior point of time, the subsequent
filing and pendency of O.S. No.210/2022
by the Petitioners, in which the civil
court has granted a temporary injunction
in favour of the Petitioners by order
dated 14.03.2022, indicates that the civil
- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
dispute between the parties is far from
settled and remains actively litigated
before the competent civil court. A
temporary injunction, by its very nature,
is a provisional and interlocutory
remedy. The grant of such a remedy in
the Petitioners' favour reflects only that
the civil court found a prima facie case in
their favour at that stage. Both civil suits
must be decided on their own merits
before any final conclusion regarding
title and possession can be drawn.
18.51.3. The co-existence of two sets of
injunction orders, one in O.S.
No.468/2020 (in R4's favour) and one in
O.S. No.210/2022 (in Petitioners' favour)
if anything, underscores the genuinely
contentious nature of the civil dispute
between the parties. It reinforces the
conclusion that the dispute between the
Petitioners and Respondent No.4 is a
bona fide civil dispute requiring
adjudication through the appropriate civil
forum, and is not a clear-cut case of
unauthorised encroachment on
- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Government land that would justify
resort to summary proceedings under
the 2011 Rules.
18.52. This Court also addresses the allegation raised
by Sri. Vishwanath N. that Petitioner No.2 was
formerly a member of the Gram Panchayat and
that he misused his position to create
Panchayat records in the name of Petitioner
No.1 (his mother) to legitimise the alleged
encroachment. This is a serious allegation, but
it suffers from a fundamental infirmity: it is an
allegation of fraud or mala fides, which must be
specifically pleaded, established with evidence,
and proved through proper adjudicatory
proceedings. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held in M. Sankaranarayanan, fraud must be
pleaded and proved; it cannot be presumed.
The allegation that Petitioner No.2 misused his
Panchayat membership cannot be accepted as
an established fact merely on the basis of a
complaint by Respondent No.4. It is an
allegation that must be adjudicated through the
appropriate legal proceedings, either through
criminal prosecution, civil fraud proceedings, or
through the Section 211 inquiry, and cannot
- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
serve as a justification for summary removal of
the Petitioners' structures under the 2011
Rules.
18.53. I answer Point No. (i) by holding that the
proceedings initiated by the Panchayat
authorities under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment)
Rules, 2011, directing removal of the alleged
encroachment by the Petitioners, are NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. The said proceedings
suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional
infirmity in that the precondition for invoking
the 2011 Rules, namely, that the subject land
must be Government/Panchayat property and
not private property, has not been established
through any proper adjudicatory process. Rule
3 itself excludes private property from its
ambit. The Panchayat Development Officer's
own report dated 20.03.2023 recorded the
absence of Panchayat jurisdiction. The Division
Bench decision in Smt. Gowramma and the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Thummala Krishna Rao, M.
Sankaranarayanan, and Jagmittar Sain
Bhagat all confirm that the summary powers
- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
under such Rules cannot be exercised when
title to the land is in dispute.
19. Answer to Point No. (ii):Whether, in the facts of
the present case, the authorities could have
exercised powers under the 2011 Rules, or
whether the dispute raised by the petitioners
regarding ownership and possession of the
property required adjudication under Section
211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993?
19.1. Sri. K.N. Nithish, learned counsel for the
Petitioners, submits that even assuming that
the Panchayat authorities were justified in
examining the complaint of Respondent No.4,
the method adopted by them was legally
impermissible. The correct and mandatory
procedure to be followed, when the ownership
and character of a property is disputed between
the Panchayat and a private claimant, is to
initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,
1993.
19.2. Learned counsel submits that Section 211 of
the 1993 Act specifically provides the statutory
mechanism for the adjudication of competing
claims between the Grama Panchayat and any
individual relating to any property or any right
- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
over property. The said provision vests
jurisdiction in the Assistant Commissioner to
decide such claims after conducting an inquiry
with due notice to all concerned parties. Only
through such a process can the question of
whether a particular land belongs to the
Panchayat or to a private individual be properly
and legally determined.
19.3. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that in the present
case, the Petitioners have consistently and
categorically disputed that the subject land
belongs to the Panchayat or to the
Government. In this factual context, the
Panchayat authorities were duty-bound to
initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the
1993 Act before the Assistant Commissioner, to
get the competing claims adjudicated. By
choosing to bypass Section 211 and instead
directly invoking the 2011 Rules for summary
removal of the alleged encroachment, the
authorities have violated the statutory scheme.
19.4. Learned counsel draws the Court's attention to
the Single Bench decision of this Court in Smt.
Gowramma, wherein this Court held that
- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
when the alleged encroacher disputes
Panchayat ownership, the authorities ought to
have initiated proceedings under Section 211 of
the Act first, and only after determining the
question of title could have proceeded to take
any further action.
19.5. He further draws the attention of the Court to
the Division Bench decision of this Court in
Smt. Gowramma wherein the Division Bench
affirmed the above position and held that
Section 211 of the 1993 Act is the proper
mechanism for adjudicating claims to property
between the Panchayat and private individuals.
The Division Bench held that the Panchayat
must first establish its title through Section 211
proceedings, and that Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules
cannot be independently invoked when the title
to the land is disputed.
19.6. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that the submission of
Respondent No.4 that Section 211 does not
apply because proceedings were initiated
pursuant to this Court's directions in W.P.
No.18300/2022, is wholly misconceived. This
Court's direction to "pass appropriate orders in
- 92 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
accordance with law" necessarily required the
authorities to follow Section 211 when the
ownership was disputed. The Court's direction
cannot be construed as authorising the
authorities to bypass mandatory statutory
requirements. Moreover, jurisdiction is a
legislative function and cannot be conferred by
a court order, as held in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat.
19.7. The submission of Respondent No.4 that
Section 211 has no application because the
property in question is gramathana land
reserved for public use is also not correct. The
character of the land, whether it is
gramathana/public land or private land, is itself
the very question in dispute. It cannot be
assumed as established when the Petitioners
are denying it. Precisely because this is a
disputed question, the Section 211 route must
be taken.
19.8. Admittedly, no proceedings have been initiated
under Section 211 of the 1993 Act in the
present case. In the absence of any
determination by the Assistant Commissioner
under Section 211, the foundational question of
- 93 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
whether the land belongs to the Panchayat or
to the Petitioners has not been resolved. The
Panchayat authorities cannot proceed to direct
removal of encroachment when this
foundational question remains undecided.
19.9. Sri. Vishwanath N., learned counsel for
Respondent No.4, submits that Section 211 of
the 1993 Act has no application to the facts of
the present case. According to him, Section 211
contemplates a situation where a dispute arises
regarding title to property between the Grama
Panchayat and a private individual, and in such
a situation the matter is required to be
adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner.
However, in the present case, no such dispute
of title arises between the Panchayat and the
Petitioners, inasmuch as the property in
question is gramathana land reserved for public
use as a road, and the Petitioners have merely
encroached upon the said land by putting up a
temporary structure.
19.10. He submits that the proceedings under the
2011 Rules were initiated not independently by
the Panchayat authorities but pursuant to the
- 94 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
specific directions issued by this Court in W.P.
No.18300/2022, which directed the PDO to
consider the encroachment representation
under Rule 3(3). When such a direction had
already been issued by this Court to examine
the alleged encroachment under the 2011
Rules, the invocation of Section 211 by the
Petitioners is an attempt to circumvent the
directions of this Court.
19.11. Learned counsel further submits that Section
211 requires a survey of "lands other than
lands ordinarily used for purposes of agriculture
only" to have been extended to the village.
Since the disputed land is gramathana land (a
non-agricultural land within the village
habitation area), Section 211 would technically
apply. However, in the present case, since the
Court's direction already authorised the 2011
Rules procedure, there was no necessity to
resort to Section 211.
19.12. By relying on Section 211 he submits that this
provision presupposes a formal dispute about
title to property; in the present case, the land
is gramathana land and the Panchayat has
- 95 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
never claimed ownership over what the
Petitioners are claiming. The ownership
question is not in dispute, the Panchayat is not
claiming ownership over the Petitioners' house;
the Panchayat is only claiming that the
Petitioners have encroached upon the
gramathana/public road land.
19.13. Sri. M.S. Devaraju, learned counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the
proceedings under the 2011 Rules were
initiated in compliance with the directions of
this Court. The Panchayat authorities acted in
good faith and in accordance with the directions
of this Court. In these circumstances, the
invocation of Section 211 as a ground of
challenge is without merit.
19.14. The material placed on record, including the
survey reports and the ADLR report, establishes
that there is a clear encroachment on the public
road and gramathana land. The Panchayat
authorities, as the custodians of public land,
had both the duty and the jurisdiction to take
action under the 2011 Rules for removal of
such encroachment. Section 211 proceedings
- 96 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
are required only in cases of genuine disputed
title between the Panchayat and the individual,
not in cases of clear encroachment on public
land.
19.15. Sri. Boppanna Belliyappa, learned Government
Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.5 and
6, has adopted the submissions advanced by
Sri. M.S. Devaraju for Respondents 1 to 3. He
has not advanced any independent submission
on the question of whether Section 211
proceedings were required. He submits that the
concerned government authorities, the
Tahsildar (R5) and the ADLR (R6), discharged
their statutory functions in accordance with the
directions of this Court and in compliance with
their respective statutory mandates. The ADLR
submitted the survey report pursuant to the
specific direction of this Court, and the same is
on record before this Court.
19.16. The question under this Point is whether, in the
circumstances of the present case, the
authorities could have exercised powers under
the 2011 Rules, or whether the dispute raised
by the Petitioners regarding ownership and
- 97 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
possession required prior adjudication under
Section 211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. For this purpose, it is
necessary to examine Section 211 of the 1993
Act.
19.17. Section 211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 reads as follows:
"211. Decision of claims to property by or against
Grama Panchayat.- (1) In any village to which a
survey of lands other than lands ordinarily used for the
purposes of agriculture only has been or shall be
extended under any law for the time being in force,
where any property or any right in or over any property
is claimed by or on behalf of the Grama Panchayat, or
by any person as against the Grama Panchayat, it shall
be lawful for the Assistant Commissioner after enquiry of
which due notice has been given, to pass an order
deciding the claims.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-
section (1) may appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and
the decision of the Deputy Commissioner shall be final.
(3) Any person shall be deemed to have had notice of
any enquiry or order under this section if notice has
been given in the prescribed manner."
19.18. Section 211 of the 1993 Act, as extracted
above, contains the following essential
elements:
19.18.1. The provision applies to any village to
which a survey of non-agricultural lands
has been extended.
- 98 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
19.18.2. The trigger for its application is the
existence of a claim, by or on behalf of
the Grama Panchayat, or by any person
as against the Grama Panchayat, in
respect of any property or any right in or
over any property.
19.18.3. When such a claim exists, the Assistant
Commissioner is empowered, after an
inquiry with due notice to all concerned,
to pass an order deciding the claims.
19.18.4. The provision contains an appellate
remedy, an aggrieved party may appeal
to the Deputy Commissioner.
19.19. Reading Section 211 carefully, it is clear that
the said provision is specifically designed for
the adjudication of competing claims regarding
property between the Grama Panchayat and
private individuals. The key language is:
"where any property or any right in or over any
property is claimed by or on behalf of the
Grama Panchayat, or by any person as against
the Grama Panchayat." This language is wide
enough to encompass a situation where a
private individual claims ownership over land
- 99 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
that the Grama Panchayat asserts is its
property. The present case falls squarely within
this description: the Petitioners claim that the
subject land (or at least the portion in front of
their house) is their private property, while the
Panchayat (acting on the complaint of
Respondent No.4) asserts that it is
gramathana/public land.
19.20. The Division Bench of this Court in Smt.
Gowramma has given an authoritative
interpretation of the inter-relationship between
Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules and Section 211 of the
1993 Act. The Division Bench, in paragraph 3 of
its judgment, held that where the Panchayat
claims that a particular property belongs to it
and alleges encroachment by a private party,
the Panchayat must produce "the essential
material to vouch its title to the property"
through the Section 211 inquiry conducted by
the Assistant Commissioner. The Division Bench
specifically held that this inquiry is a
prerequisite before any encroachment removal
can be directed. The Division Bench also held
that the provisions of Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules
- 100 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
"cannot be invoked independently when the
very title to the land is disputed."
19.21. The Single Bench decision in Smt. Gowramma
is to the same effect. The Court held that Rule
3 "presupposes Obstruction And Encroachment
of the Panchayat property" and that "it also
presupposes there being no dispute by the
encroacher." When the alleged encroacher
disputes the Panchayat's ownership, the
appropriate course is Section 211 proceedings.
These decisions are binding upon this Court.
Their ratio squarely applies to the present case.
19.22. The submission of Respondent No.4 that
Section 211 has no application because
proceedings were initiated pursuant to this
Court's directions in W.P. No.18300/2022, has
already been considered under Point (i) above.
For the same reasons as stated therein, this
submission is not accepted. The Court's
direction to act "in accordance with law"
necessarily means following the procedure
mandated by law, including Section 211 when
the ownership is disputed. The Court's direction
- 101 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
cannot override the statutory scheme or confer
jurisdiction that the statute does not provide.
19.23. The submission of Sri. Vishwanath N. that there
is no genuine title dispute because the land is
clearly gramathana/public land and the
Panchayat is not claiming ownership over the
Petitioners' house, it is only claiming that the
Petitioners have encroached on the public road,
is a circular argument. Whether the land
adjacent to the Petitioners' structures is the
Petitioners' private property (as they claim,
based on their Khatha showing the road as the
northern boundary) or is gramathana/public
road land (as the respondents claim), is
itselfthe disputed question that requires
adjudication. The determination of this question
cannot be made unilaterally by the Panchayat
through summary encroachment proceedings.
It requires a proper adjudicatory process with
due notice and opportunity to all parties.
19.24. This Court must specifically address the
submission of Sri. Vishwanath N. that Section
211 cannot apply because it requires "a survey
of lands other than lands ordinarily used for
- 102 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
purposes of agriculture only" to have been
extended to the village. Sri. Vishwanath N.
argues that if this precondition is not met,
Section 211 proceedings are not available. This
Court rejects this submission for the following
reasons:
19.24.1. The subject land is admittedly a
gramathana land/site, a non-agricultural
land within the village habitation area. A
gramathana is, by definition, "land other
than land ordinarily used for the
purposes of agriculture only." Section
211 is specifically designed for village
lands other than agricultural lands. The
gramathana land in a surveyed village
would clearly fall within the scope of
Section 211 proceedings.
19.24.2. More fundamentally, if the respondents'
position is that Section 211 cannot apply
because the survey precondition has not
been met, then the very same logic
would apply to foreclose reliance on the
2011 Rules as well, because the 2011
Rules (read with the principal Act)
- 103 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
cannot apply to lands that are outside
the Panchayat's jurisdiction.
19.24.3. The respondents cannot simultaneously
argue that Section 211 does not apply
(because of the survey precondition) and
that the 2011 Rules do apply. These are
mutually contradictory positions.
19.24.4. In any event, it is settled law that if an
authority claims that certain land
belongs to the Panchayat or is public
property, it is for that authority to
establish both the factual and
jurisdictional foundation for its claim.
The Panchayat cannot selectively invoke
summary powers under the 2011 Rules
while simultaneously excluding the
applicability of Section 211 proceedings
that would provide the only proper
mechanism for adjudicating its
ownership claim.
19.24.5. In the present case, the respondents
have not placed any material before this
Court to establish that the survey
precondition under Section 211 is indeed
- 104 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
not satisfied. The submission remains a
bare assertion.
19.25. The Court further notes that admittedly no
proceedings have been initiated under Section
211 of the 1993 Act. The Assistant
Commissioner has conducted no inquiry under
Section 211. There is no order of the Assistant
Commissioner under Section 211 determining
the competing claims. In the complete absence
of any Section 211 proceedings, the Panchayat
authorities were not in a position to direct
removal of the alleged encroachment under the
2011 Rules, since the foundational
determination of the character of the land had
not been made.
19.26. It is also relevant to note that Respondent No.4
(Sri. K.C. Shivaramu) is a private individual
who has raised a complaint against the
Petitioners. He is not the Grama Panchayat or
the Government. The dispute, at its core, is a
dispute between two sets of private individuals
regarding the boundaries of their respective
properties. The involvement of the Panchayat
authorities in this dispute (through the
- 105 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
complaint mechanism under Rule 3 of the 2011
Rules) does not transform this private boundary
dispute into a case of clear encroachment on
public property. The character of the land must
be determined first, and that determination can
only be made through the Section 211 route.
19.27. I answer point no. (ii) by holding that in the
facts of the present case, the authorities could
NOT have exercised powers under the 2011
Rules without first adjudicating the dispute
relating to ownership and possession of the
property through proceedings under Section
211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Since no such Section
211 proceedings were initiated, the exercise of
powers under the 2011 Rules and the
consequential orders are without proper legal
foundation.
20. Answer to Point No. (iii):Whether the material
placed on record, including the survey reports,
inspection reports and the Court
Commissioner's report, establish that the
petitioners have encroached upon gramathana
land or a public road?
20.1. Sri. K.N. Nithish, learned counsel for the
Petitioners, submits that the material placed on
- 106 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
record does not establish any encroachment
upon gramathana land or a public road. His
primary submission is that the Khatha
certificate and the demand register, both issued
by the Panchayat itself, record the northern
boundary of the Petitioners' properties as a
road. This clearly indicates that the Petitioners'
properties extend up to the road, and there is
no intervening strip of land between the
Petitioners' properties and the road that can be
claimed to be Government or Panchayat
property.
20.2. He submits that the initial allegation made by
Respondent No.4 was that the Petitioners had
encroached upon the road itself. However, the
survey report produced by the ADLR
established that the road continues to exist in
its original form and that there has been no
encroachment upon the road itself. Having
accepted that the road itself has not been
encroached upon, it is entirely contradictory for
the respondents to now contend that the land
on this side of the road constitutes gramathana
land or Government land that has been
- 107 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
encroached upon. These two positions are
mutually exclusive and cannot stand together.
20.3. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that the spot
inspection report relied upon by the Panchayat
authorities was conducted without prior notice
to the Petitioners and without affording them
any opportunity to participate or to present
their case. The Petitioners were not informed of
the date of the inspection in advance and were
not afforded the opportunity to take the
assistance of their advocate or a private
surveyor. A report prepared without notice and
participation of the affected party cannot be
relied upon as a foundation for adverse orders.
20.4. Learned counsel further submits that the Court
Commissioner's report dated 04.11.2025,
submitted pursuant to the order of this Court
dated 30.10.2025, is the most reliable and
neutral piece of evidence on record regarding
the actual physical state of the subject
property. The Commissioner, after visiting the
property on 01.11.2025, recorded that the
distance between the goat/cattle shed and the
road on the northern side is approximately
- 108 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
eleven feet. This clearly establishes that the
cattle shed is not on the road, nor does it
encroach upon the road or the land
immediately adjacent to the road. The eleven-
foot gap between the shed and the road is
consistent with the Petitioners' case that their
property extends up to the road and that the
structures are within their property.
20.5. He points out that the ADLR report, even if
accepted, identifies encroachment in various
colour-coded portions. However, the Petitioners
contend that those portions fall within their
private property. The Petitioners have filed
objections to the ADLR report pointing out that
no survey was conducted in their presence and
that the contents of the report are substantially
similar to the earlier report submitted in W.P.
No.18300/2022. The report, which bears the
writ petition number of W.P. No.18300/2022
even though it was submitted in the present
proceedings, appears to have been prepared
without a fresh inspection of the property.
20.6. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that in matters
relating to identification of property and its
- 109 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
boundaries, boundaries as described in title
documents (Khatha, demand register entries)
always prevail over measurements or survey
numbers. The northern boundary of the
Petitioners' properties, as recorded in the
Khatha and demand register, is the road itself.
The Petitioners' claim is that they have been in
continuous possession of the land extending up
to the road, and that the cattle shed is a
structure constructed within their property for
housing cattle. The mere fact that a portion of
the land appears vacant on a map cannot lead
to the presumption that it is Government or
Panchayat land.
20.7. He submits that in any event, the question of
encroachment cannot be determined in
summary encroachment proceedings under the
2011 Rules when the very ownership of the
land is in dispute. This argument, already
addressed under Points (i) and (ii) above,
applies with equal force to this Point.
20.8. Sri. Vishwanath N. submits that the
encroachment by the Petitioners has been
conclusively established through multiple
- 110 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
reports. The ADLR survey report submitted
pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.
No.18300/2022 clearly identifies encroachment
in colour-coded portions: an encroachment of
approximately ten feet in the orange-marked
area, encroachment of about three-fourths of a
gunta in the green-marked area, and
encroachment of about one-fourth of a gunta in
the pink-marked area. The report also identifies
areas marked in green, blue, and brown as part
of the public road that has been encroached
upon.
20.9. He relies upon the order dated 17.11.2023 of
this Court in W.P. No.18300/2022, in which this
Court, after considering the ADLR report,
recorded that the Petitioners (who were
Respondent Nos.9 and 10 in that writ petition)
had encroached upon the public road. He
submits that this finding by this Court itself
establishes the encroachment.
20.10. Further, Sri. Vishwanath N. submits that when
the encroachment was found, the Petitioners
themselves gave an undertaking before this
Court in W.P. No.18300/2022 that they would
- 111 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
remove the encroachment. The very fact that
the Petitioners gave such an undertaking is a
strong circumstance indicating that they
themselves acknowledged the encroachment.
20.11. Regarding the Court Commissioner's report,
Sri. Vishwanath N. submits that the
Commissioner's report shows the existence of a
goat/cattle shed measuring approximately
735.30 square feet on the subject property,
which is far in excess of the area covered by
the Khatha (Gramathana No.6/76, 91.87
sq.m.). The cattle shed itself is a large
structure and appears to extend beyond the
boundaries of the Khatha property. The eleven-
foot gap between the shed and the road
mentioned in the Commissioner's report relates
to one part of the shed, and does not mean
that the entire shed is within the Petitioners'
property.
20.12. Sri. M.S. Devaraju submits that the survey and
inspection reports clearly establish the
existence of encroachment. The reports
demarcate the encroached portions with colour
markings and identify the exact extent of the
- 112 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
encroachment. The Panchayat authorities, upon
examining the reports and conducting their own
proceedings, found that the Petitioners have
constructed a structure on the public road area.
The encroachment is a matter of established
fact based on official inspection.
20.13. He further submits that the cattle shed
constructed by the Petitioners on the
gramathana/public road area is an obstruction
to the free use of the road by the villagers and
the public. The removal of such an obstruction
is not only permissible but mandatory under
the 2011 Rules.
20.14. Under this Point, the Court is required to
examine whether the material on record,
including the survey reports, the ADLR
inspection report, and the Court
Commissioner's report, establishes that the
Petitioners have encroached upon gramathana
land or a public road. This Court has carefully
examined all the material placed on record.
20.15. The Court Commissioner's report dated
04.11.2025 is the most significant and reliable
piece of evidence on the factual position. The
- 113 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Court Commissioner was appointed by this
Court by order dated 30.10.2025 specifically to
resolve the dispute arising from the rival
contentions regarding the correctness of the
ADLR survey report. The Commissioner is a
neutral officer appointed by this Court, and the
Commissioner's observations are therefore
untainted by the adversarial interests of any
party.
20.16. The Court Commissioner visited the property
bearing Gramathana No.6/76, measuring 91.87
square metres, at Kodagahalli Village, Basaralu
Grama Panchayat, Mandya District, on
01.11.2025 at about 11:15 a.m. The
Commissioner recorded the following
observations:
20.16.1. The property consists of a Mangalore
tiled house measuring approximately
1,652 square feet.
20.16.2. A green-coloured AC sheet structure
measuring approximately 698.22 square
feet.
- 114 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
20.16.3. A goat/cattle shed measuring
approximately 735.30 square feet.
20.16.4. The goat/cattle shed measures about
31.6 feet on the western side and
narrows towards the eastern side to
about 19.06 feet (excluding the drain).
20.16.5. Critically and most importantly, the
distance between the goat/cattle shed
and the road situated on the northern
side is approximately ELEVEN FEET.
20.16.6. Adjacent to the shed, there exists a
drain measuring about one and a half
feet in width.
20.16.7. The Commissioner produced
photographs, a sketch, a Google map,
and a screenshot from the Dishank
application in support of the
observations.
20.17. The observation of the Court Commissioner
that the distance between the cattle shed and
the northern road is approximately eleven feet
is a crucial finding. If the cattle shed is eleven
feet away from the road, it means the cattle
- 115 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
shed is NOT on the road and does NOT
encroach upon the road. The road exists in its
original form, and there is a gap of eleven feet
between the shed and the road. This
observation is consistent with the Petitioners'
case that the road continues to exist
undisturbed and that the structures are within
the Petitioners' property.
20.18. The critical question, however, is what is the
character of the land that lies within this
eleven-foot gap between the cattle shed and
the road. Is it part of the Petitioners' private
property (as the Petitioners claim, on the basis
that their Khatha shows the road as the
northern boundary)? Or is it gramathana land
or public road margin land (as the respondents
claim)? The Court Commissioner's report does
not answer this question, since that question
requires adjudication of title, which is precisely
what Section 211 proceedings are meant to
determine.
20.19. Inofar as the ADLR survey report, the
Petitioners have raised serious objections to the
ADLR report, contending that it was prepared
- 116 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
without their participation and that the contents
are substantially similar to the earlier report in
W.P. No.18300/2022. The ADLR report bearing
the writ petition number of W.P.
No.18300/2022 was apparently submitted in
the present proceedings as well, which raises
doubts about whether a fresh and independent
inspection was conducted. The Petitioners have
specifically stated that when the ADLR and
other officials visited the property on
13.10.2025, Petitioner No.2 was indisposed and
the officials were requested to inform the
Petitioners in advance of the survey date, but
no fresh survey was conducted and yet the
report was submitted.
20.20. In view of the Petitioners' objections to the
ADLR report and the appointment of the Court
Commissioner specifically to examine the
matter, the Court Commissioner's report must
be treated as the more reliable and neutral
piece of evidence on the factual position. The
Court Commissioner's report does not establish
any encroachment by the Petitioners upon the
road itself. On the contrary, the eleven-foot gap
- 117 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
between the shed and the road supports the
Petitioners' position.
20.21. This Court also takes note of the fact that
Respondent No.4 had filed a civil suit in O.S.
No.468/2020 against the Petitioners, in which
an injunction order was reportedly obtained.
However, the Petitioners thereafter filed O.S.
No.210/2022 and obtained an injunction in
their favour by order dated 14.03.2022. The
existence of these two civil suits, with
injunctions operating on both sides at different
points of time, does not assist the respondents
in establishing that the alleged encroachment is
clear and undisputed. If anything, it
demonstrates that both parties have resorted
to the civil court for vindication of their
respective rights, which confirms that the
dispute is genuinely civil in nature and requires
adjudication before the competent civil court.
20.22. Regarding the submission of Sri. Vishwanath N.
that this Court in W.P. No.18300/2022 recorded
that the Petitioners had encroached upon the
public road: The Court notes that the daily
orders passed in interlocutory writ proceedings
- 118 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
represent the court's tentative assessment of
the material before it at that stage and in that
context, and are not final findings of fact. The
matter was subsequently examined by the
Court Commissioner appointed by this Court,
whose report provides a more definitive picture
of the on-ground situation. The Commissioner's
observation that the shed is eleven feet from
the road does not support the conclusion that
the Petitioners have encroached upon the road
itself.
20.23. The Court also notes that the total area of the
Khatha property (Gramathana No.6/76) is
91.87 square metres, which is approximately
989 square feet. The Commissioner has found
structures measuring 1,652 sq.ft. (house) +
698.22 sq.ft. (AC sheet structure) + 735.30
sq.ft. (cattle shed) = 3,085.52 sq.ft. in total on
the site. This raises a question as to whether all
these structures are within the 91.87 sq.m.
(989 sq.ft.) Khatha property, or whether some
of them spill over the Khatha boundaries.
However, the resolution of this question,
including the identification of exact boundaries
and measurement of encroachment, if any, is
- 119 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
precisely the kind of fact-finding exercise that
must be undertaken in Section 211
proceedings, and cannot be done in summary
encroachment removal proceedings under the
2011 Rules.Furthermore whether boundaries
prevail over measurements would also have to
be considered appropriately.
20.24. Even on the basis of the ADLR survey report
(which identifies encroachment in colour-coded
portions), the question of whether the
encroached areas belong to the
Panchayat/Government or to the Petitioners
remains undetermined. The ADLR report
assumes that certain areas belong to the public
road, but this assumption is itself the disputed
question. The ADLR report cannot resolve the
title question, only Section 211 proceedings
before the Assistant Commissioner can do that.
20.25. I answer Point No. (iii) by holding that the
material placed on record does NOT
conclusively establish that the Petitioners have
encroached upon gramathana land or a public
road in the sense that would justify the
exercise of powers under the 2011 Rules. The
- 120 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Court Commissioner's report, which is the most
neutral and reliable piece of evidence, shows
that the cattle shed is eleven feet away from
the northern road, indicating that the road itself
has not been encroached upon. The question of
whether the land between the structures and
the road belongs to the Petitioners or to the
Panchayat/Government is a disputed question
of title that has not been adjudicated in any
appropriate forum. In the absence of such
adjudication, it cannot be held that the
Petitioners have encroached upon gramathana
land or a public road.
21. Answer to Point No. (iv):Whether the impugned
order dated 13.02.2025 passed by respondent
No.2 and the appellate order dated 30.07.2025
passed by respondent No.1 suffer from
jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity or
violation of the principles of natural justice?
21.1. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that the impugned
order dated 13.02.2025 passed by Respondent
No.2 (the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat)
suffers from multiple and fundamental
infirmities.
21.2. The first infirmity is one of jurisdiction. The
PDO's Report dated 20.03.2023 had
- 121 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
categorically recorded that the disputed land
does not fall within the Grama Panchayat's
jurisdiction. The Executive Officer, while
passing the order dated 13.02.2025, did not
advert to this finding, did not refer to the said
report, and did not record any reasons for
departing from the conclusion reached by the
PDO. The impugned order has been passed
without jurisdiction, in disregard of the clear
finding recorded by the PDO about lack of
Panchayat jurisdiction.
21.3. The second infirmity is one of procedural
irregularity. The proceedings under the 2011
Rules require the issuance of notice to the
parties and the conduct of an inquiry before
any order for removal of encroachment can be
passed. However, in the present case, the spot
inspection was conducted without prior notice
to the Petitioners. The Petitioners were not
informed in advance of the date and time of the
spot inspection. They were not afforded any
opportunity to remain present during the
inspection or to present their case. The
inspection report was prepared entirely behind
the back of the Petitioners.
- 122 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
21.4. The third infirmity is the violation of the
principles of natural justice. The impugned
order dated 13.02.2025 was passed without
conducting a proper spot inspection (since the
Petitioners were not present), without holding
any inquiry at which the Petitioners could
present their case, and without recording any
evidence from the parties. The order has been
passed in complete disregard of the Petitioners'
right to be heard.
21.5. The fourth infirmity is the failure of the
Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1, the CEO,
Zilla Panchayat) to address the jurisdictional
objection raised by the Petitioners. In their
appeal before Respondent No.1, the Petitioners
specifically raised the jurisdictional issue, that
the land does not fall within the Panchayat's
jurisdiction and that Section 211 proceedings
are required. However, the Appellate Authority,
in its order dated 30.07.2025, dismissed the
appeal without addressing this fundamental
jurisdictional objection. The failure to address a
specifically raised and legally substantial ground
renders the appellate order legally infirm.
- 123 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
21.6. He also submits that the Appellate Authority
failed to take note of the civil court injunction in
O.S. No.210/2022, which had restrained
Respondent No.4 from interfering with the
Petitioners' possession. The existence of this
injunction was material to the consideration of
the appeal.
21.7. Sri. Vishwanath N. submits that the authorities
have conducted their proceedings in strict
compliance with the 2011 Rules and in
accordance with the directions of this Court.
The Petitioners participated in the earlier
proceedings in W.P. No.18300/2022. The
survey reports and inspection reports were
submitted pursuant to court directions. The
Executive Officer passed the order dated
13.02.2025 after examining all the material.
The Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1)
considered the appeal and passed a reasoned
order dismissing the same. The impugned
orders do not call for any interference by this
Court.
21.8. Regarding natural justice, he submits that the
proceedings under the 2011 Rules are quasi-
- 124 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
summary in nature and the opportunity to be
heard was provided through the statutory
notice procedure. The Petitioners did participate
in the proceedings and had the opportunity to
raise their objections. The Petitioners
subsequently had a full-fledged hearing before
the Appellate Authority. The principles of
natural justice have been substantially complied
with.
21.9. Sri. M.S. Devaraju submits that the impugned
orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional
error, procedural irregularity, or violation of
natural justice. The Panchayat authorities acted
in accordance with the 2011 Rules and
pursuant to the directions of this Court. The
Executive Officer passed the impugned order
after considering the survey report and other
material. The Appellate Authority considered
the appeal on merits and passed a reasoned
order. The impugned orders are lawful, valid,
and in furtherance of the statutory obligation of
the Panchayat to remove encroachments from
public property.
- 125 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
21.10. Having considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on all sides and having perused
the impugned orders, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned orders suffer from
serious infirmities, which are examined
hereunder.
21.11. First, on jurisdictional error in the order dated
13.02.2025 (Respondent No.2):
21.11.1. As held while answering Points (i) and
(ii) above, the proceedings under the
2011 Rules lack legal foundation because
the character of the land is disputed and
Section 211 proceedings have not been
initiated. These findings apply with equal
force to the present Point.
21.11.2. More specifically, the Panchayat
Development Officer (Respondent No.3)
had submitted a Report dated
20.03.2023 to the Executive Officer in
which he specifically recorded that the
disputed land does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Grama Panchayat and
that the complaint cannot be treated as
encroachment upon Government land.
- 126 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
This Report constitutes a finding on a
jurisdictional fact made by the very
authority designated to form the initial
opinion under Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules.
21.11.3. The Executive Officer, before passing the
impugned order dated 13.02.2025, was
duty-bound to examine this Report of
the PDO and either record reasons for
disagreeing with it or accept its findings.
The impugned order dated 13.02.2025
does not reference the PDO's Report
dated 20.03.2023 at all. The complete
silence of the impugned order on this
Report, which contained a finding
adverse to the initiation of proceedings
under the 2011 Rules, constitutes a
fundamental failure on the part of the
Executive Officer. The impugned order is
thus a non-speaking order on the most
critical jurisdictional issue.
21.11.4. An order passed by a quasi-judicial
authority without considering material
evidence on record, particularly
evidence that goes to the very root of
- 127 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
jurisdiction, is legally infirm and liable to
be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
21.12. Second, on violation of principles of natural
justice in the proceedings leading to the
impugned order:
21.12.1. The principles of natural justice, which
are the minimal standards of procedural
fairness required of any authority
exercising quasi-judicial or
administrative powers affecting the
rights of individuals, require that a
person must be given adequate notice
and opportunity to be heard before an
adverse order is passed against him.
21.12.2. In the present case, the spot inspection
that formed the basis of the
encroachment removal proceedings was
conducted without prior notice to the
Petitioners. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that
when the ADLR and other officials visited
the property on 13.10.2025 for
conducting the inspection, the
Petitioners were not informed in advance
and requested the officials to fix a fresh
- 128 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
date. No fresh survey was conducted,
and yet a report bearing the writ petition
number of W.P. No.18300/2022 was
submitted. Such a procedure is clearly
violative of the Petitioners' right to
participate in the inspection and to
present their case.
21.12.3. The right of an individual to be present
during spot inspections that may
adversely affect their property rights is a
well-recognised facet of the principles of
natural justice. Any report or finding
based on an inspection conducted
without adequate notice to the affected
party is procedurally infirm and cannot
be acted upon to the prejudice of that
party.
21.12.4. Furthermore, the order dated
13.02.2025 passed by Respondent No.2
is stated to have been passed without
conducting a proper spot inspection (as
the inspection was disputed), without
holding any formal inquiry, and without
recording evidence from the parties. This
- 129 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
Court in its writ jurisdiction is
empowered to interfere with orders
passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice, as the same constitutes
an error of law affecting the rights of the
Petitioners.
21.12.5. There is an additional procedural
infirmity that must be noted. The
direction issued by this Court in W.P.
No.18300/2022 by order dated
04.07.2024 specifically required the
Executive Officer to "consider the
representation after issuing notice to the
parties under Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules
and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law." This Court
specifically directed compliance with Rule
4 of the 2011 Rules, which is the
provision governing the issuance of
notice and holding of an inquiry before
an order of removal can be passed.
21.12.6. Rule 4 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Obstruction and
Encroachment) Rules, 2011 prescribes
- 130 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the procedure for removal of
obstructions and encroachments. It
requires that notice be issued to the
person alleged to have caused the
encroachment, and that the person be
given an opportunity to show cause
against the proposed removal. The
provision ensures that no coercive action
is taken without the affected person
being heard. The specific mention of
Rule 4 in this Court's direction was
intended to ensure that the rights of the
Petitioners (who were the persons
alleged to have encroached) were
protected through the prescribed notice
and hearing procedure.
21.12.7. In the present case, the Petitioners'
specific grievance is that the spot
inspection was conducted without prior
notice and without their participation,
and that the impugned order was passed
without following the Rule 4 procedure.
The impugned order dated 13.02.2025
does not indicate that the Rule 4
procedure, issuance of notice, receipt of
- 131 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
the alleged encroacher's response, and
consideration thereof, was properly
followed before the order was passed.
The failure to comply with the specific
procedural requirement of Rule 4, which
was expressly directed by this Court in
W.P. No.18300/2022, is an independent
and additional ground for holding the
impugned order to be illegal and liable to
be quashed.
21.13. Third, on the appellate order dated 30.07.2025
(Respondent No.1):
21.13.1. The Petitioners, upon being granted
liberty to file an appeal by this Court in
W.P. No.7693/2025, preferred an appeal
before Respondent No.1 (the CEO, Zilla
Panchayat) in Appeal No.1/2025. In that
appeal, the Petitioners specifically raised
the jurisdictional issue, that the
Panchayat authorities lacked jurisdiction
because the PDO had found the land to
be outside the Panchayat's jurisdiction
and that Section 211 proceedings were
required. However, the appellate order
- 132 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
dated 30.07.2025 passed by Respondent
No.1 dismissed the appeal without
specifically addressing the jurisdictional
objection.
21.13.2. An appellate authority exercising quasi-
judicial powers is required to address all
the grounds raised before it, particularly
those relating to jurisdiction. The failure
to consider and address a jurisdictional
objection, which, if valid, would go to the
root of the matter, is a serious failure of
the Appellate Authority's quasi-judicial
function.
21.13.3. It is a well-established principle that
when a quasi-judicial authority fails to
consider a material ground raised before
it, the order is liable to be interfered with
in writ jurisdiction as it is passed without
application of mind to a material issue.
21.14. Fourth, on the failure to consider the civil court
injunction: The Petitioners have a pending civil
suit (O.S. No.210/2022) before the II Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, in which the civil
court has granted a temporary injunction
- 133 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
restraining Respondent No.4 from interfering
with the Petitioners' possession. The Petitioners
contend that this injunction order was not taken
into consideration by either the Executive
Officer or the Appellate Authority. An injunction
order passed by a competent civil court, though
operating between the parties to the civil suit,
is a material circumstance that a quasi-judicial
authority ought to have taken cognizance of.
The failure to even acknowledge the existence
of this injunction order in the impugned
proceedings further vitiates the decision-
making process.
21.15. For all the above reasons I answer Point No.
(iv) by holding that the impugned order dated
13.02.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 suffers
from (a) jurisdictional error in that it was
passed without examining the PDO's Report
dated 20.03.2023 which recorded lack of
Panchayat jurisdiction; (b) violation of
principles of natural justice in that the spot
inspection was conducted without notice and
opportunity to the Petitioners; and (c) non-
application of mind to the jurisdictional
objection raised by the Petitioners. The
- 134 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
appellate order dated 30.07.2025 passed by
Respondent No.1 suffers from (a) failure to
address the specifically raised jurisdictional
objection; and (b) non-consideration of the civil
court injunction. Both impugned orders are
therefore legally infirm and liable to be quashed
in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
22. Answer to Point No. (v):Whether the
petitioners have established any grounds
warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India?
22.1. Sri. K.N. Nithish submits that the Petitioners
have clearly made out a strong case for the
exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of
India. According to him, the impugned orders
are liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction for
the following cumulative grounds:
22.2. The proceedings under the 2011 Rules were
initiated without jurisdiction, as the subject land
is disputed private property and not
Panchayat/Government property. The
Panchayat Development Officer's own report
- 135 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
dated 20.03.2023 recorded the absence of
Panchayat jurisdiction.
22.3. Section 211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 was not invoked,
contrary to the mandate of law as laid down by
the Division Bench of this Court in Smt.
Gowramma.
22.4. The spot inspection was conducted without
notice and opportunity to the Petitioners, in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
22.5. The impugned order dated 13.02.2025 was
passed without considering the PDO's Report
dated 20.03.2023 and without addressing the
jurisdictional objection.
22.6. The appellate order dated 30.07.2025 was
passed without addressing the specifically
raised jurisdictional objection and without
considering the civil court injunction.
22.7. All the above grounds singly and cumulatively
warrant the exercise of this Court's writ
jurisdiction for the purpose of quashing the
impugned orders.
- 136 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
22.8. Sri. Vishwanath N. submits that the Petitioners
have not established any ground for the
exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Panchayat
authorities have acted strictly in compliance
with the law and pursuant to the directions of
this Court. The impugned orders are based on
factual findings supported by survey reports
and inspection. This Court ought to show
deference to the factual findings of the
competent authorities and should not substitute
its own assessment of the factual position.
22.9. He submits that the writ jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is
supervisory in nature and is not meant to be
invoked for a re-appreciation of evidence. In
the present case, the Petitioners are seeking a
re-examination of the factual finding of
encroachment, which is not permissible in writ
jurisdiction.
22.10. The petition deserves to be dismissed with
appropriate directions for removal of the
encroachment.
22.11. Sri. M.S. Devaraju submits that the writ petition
is devoid of merit. The authorities have
- 137 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
discharged their statutory duty under the 2011
Rules to prevent encroachment on public
property. The exercise of this statutory duty
does not call for interference in writ jurisdiction.
22.12. The scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India is well-
established. Article 226 empowers the High
Court to issue writs including writs of certiorari
for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental
rights and for any other purpose. Article 227
vests the High Court with the power of
superintendence over all courts and tribunals
within its jurisdiction.
22.13. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles
226 and 227, this Court is empowered to
interfere with orders passed by quasi-judicial
authorities on the following grounds, among
others:
22.13.1. Want of jurisdiction or excess of
jurisdiction, when an authority acts
without jurisdiction or exceeds its
jurisdiction.
- 138 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
22.13.2. Error of law apparent on the face of the
record.
22.13.3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
22.13.4. Non-compliance with mandatory
statutory requirements.
22.13.5. Non-application of mind to material
evidence.
22.14. This Court is not called upon to re-appreciate
evidence or to substitute its own factual
findings for those of the competent authorities.
However, when the impugned orders suffer
from jurisdictional infirmities, violations of
natural justice, and non-compliance with the
statutory scheme, all of which are questions of
law, this Court is not only entitled but duty-
bound to interfere in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
22.15. In the present case, as held while answering
Points (i) through (iv) above, the following
grounds for writ interference are clearly
established:
- 139 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
22.15.1. The proceedings under the 2011 Rules
lack jurisdiction because the precondition
under Rule 3 (that the land must not be
private property) has not been satisfied.
The land's character is disputed and
Section 211 proceedings to determine
the same have not been initiated. This is
a jurisdictional infirmity.
22.15.2. The impugned order dated 13.02.2025
was passed without considering the
PDO's Report dated 20.03.2023, which
recorded the absence of Panchayat
jurisdiction. This constitutes non-
application of mind to a material
document going to the root of
jurisdiction.
22.15.3. The spot inspection relied upon was
conducted without notice to the
Petitioners, violating the principles of
natural justice.
22.15.4. The Appellate Authority (Respondent
No.1) dismissed the appeal without
addressing the specifically raised
- 140 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
jurisdictional objection, which constitutes
a failure of quasi-judicial function.
22.15.5. The impugned orders are contrary to the
law laid down by the Division Bench of
this Court in Smt. Gowramma, which is
binding upon this Court.
22.16. The submission of Sri. Vishwanath N. that this
Court should not substitute its assessment of
facts for that of the competent authorities is
noted. However, this submission misses the
point. The Petitioners are not seeking a re-
appreciation of the factual finding of
encroachment. They are raising questions of
law, lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural
justice, and non-compliance with the statutory
scheme, all of which fall squarely within the
domain of writ jurisdiction. This Court is not re-
examining whether there is any encroachment
on the facts; this Court is examining whether
the authorities had the jurisdiction to inquire
into and adjudicate upon that question in the
manner they did. The answer, as found above,
is in the negative.
- 141 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
22.17. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat,
Thummala Krishna Rao, and M.
Sankaranarayanan, and the binding decisions
of this Court in Smt. Gowramma (Single
Bench and Division Bench), collectively
establish that the impugned orders are contrary
to law and liable to be set aside. The orders
have been passed in excess of jurisdiction, in
violation of the principles of natural justice, in
disregard of material evidence, and contrary to
mandatory statutory requirements. All these
grounds, singly and cumulatively, warrant the
exercise of this Court's writ jurisdiction.
22.18. For all the aforesaid reasons I answer Point No.
(v) by holding that the Petitioners have
established grounds warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. The impugned orders suffer from
jurisdictional infirmity, violation of principles of
natural justice, non-application of mind to
material evidence, and non-compliance with
mandatory statutory requirements. This Court
- 142 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472
WP No. 26364 of 2025
HC-KAR
is entitled and duty-bound to interfere with
such orders in writ jurisdiction. Point
23. Answer to Point No. (vii):What order?
23.1. In view of the findings recorded under Points (i)
through (v) above, I pass the following
ORDER
i. Writ petition is ALLOWED.
ii. The impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 (the Executive Officer and Competent Authority, Taluk Panchayat, Mandya) in Appeal No.19/2024-25 at Annexure-K to the writ petition is hereby QUASHED.
iii. The impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 (the Chief Executive Officer and Appellant Authority, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya) in Appeal No.MDYZP- DEV00THS:1/2025 at Annexure-P to the writ petition is hereby QUASHED.
iv. The notice dated 21.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 (the Panchayat Development Officer, Basaralu Grama Panchayat) bearing
- 143 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472 WP No. 26364 of 2025 HC-KAR No.GRA PUM//2025-2026 at Annexure-S to the writ petition is hereby QUASHED.
v. The Panchayat authorities and the concerned respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 211 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 before the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Taluk, if so advised, for adjudication of the competing claims of the parties regarding the subject property, after issuing due notice to all stakeholders including the Petitioners and Respondent No.4.
vi. The civil suit O.S. No.210/2022 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, shall continue to be heard and decided on its own merits and is not affected by this order.
vii. Pending the initiation and completion of Section 211 proceedings, status quo as to the physical position of the properties in question shall be maintained by all parties as it exists on this day.
- 144 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15472 WP No. 26364 of 2025 HC-KAR viii. Respondent No.4 is at liberty to pursue all other available remedies in accordance with law before appropriate fora.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3