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