Case Note & Summary
The Petitioners, Smt. Hombalamma and Sri Appaji, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka challenging three orders: (i) the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat’s order dated 13.02.2025 directing removal of alleged encroachment; (ii) the Appellate Authority’s order dated 30.07.2025 dismissing their appeal; and (iii) a notice dated 21.08.2025 issued by the Panchayat Development Officer. The property dispute involves two ancestral house properties in Kodagahalli Village, Mandya District. Petitioner No.1 holds E-Khatha No.152100404801220007; Petitioner No.2 claims Site No.6/6 via inheritance. They had earlier filed O.S. No.210/2022 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Mandya, securing a temporary injunction on 14.03.2022 restraining Respondent No.4 from interfering with their possession. Respondent No.4, claiming ownership of adjacent land Sy. No.34/3, alleged encroachment and approached the High Court in W.P. No.18300/2022, which resulted in a direction on 04.07.2024 to the Panchayat authorities to consider the representation under Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011. Pursuant to that, the Executive Officer passed the impugned removal order. The Petitioners challenged it in W.P. No.7693/2025; that writ petition was disposed of on 18.03.2025 with liberty to file an appeal and the removal order kept in abeyance. The Petitioners’ appeal to the Zilla Panchayat was dismissed on 30.07.2025. Before the High Court, the Petitioners argued that the 2011 Rules do not apply to gramathana lands; a Panchayat Development Officer’s report confirmed lack of jurisdiction; the civil injunction binds the authorities; the removal order was passed without any enquiry or spot inspection; and Khatha records prove no encroachment as the property boundary aligns with the existing road. The High Court reserved orders on 28.01.2026 and pronounced a CAV Order on 13.03.2026; however, the available text of the judgment is incomplete and does not include the court’s analysis, findings, or operative directions. Hence, the final decision, ratio decidendi, and outcome are not ascertainable from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Jurisdiction - Encroachment Removal - Gramathana Lands - Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011, Rules 3, 4 - Petitioners contended that the disputed land is gramathana, not Government land, and thus Panchayat authorities lack jurisdiction. A Panchayat Development Officer report stated gramathana land complaints cannot be treated as encroachment on Government land. The appellate order dismissed this contention. (Paras 9, 12.4)
B) Civil Suit Pendency - Effect on Parallel Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Petitioners obtained a temporary injunction in O.S. No. 210/2022, and argued that the civil court’s order precludes the authorities from passing a removal order. The impugned orders were passed without considering the pending suit. (Paras 4-5)
C) Natural Justice - Spot Inspection and Enquiry - Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011 - Petitioners alleged that the Executive Officer passed the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 without a spot inspection, enquiry, or recording evidence, violating principles of natural justice. (Para 8)
D) Boundaries and Khatha - Ownership Determination - Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011 - Petitioners relied on Khatha certificates and demand registers showing their northern boundary as a road, asserting no intervening Government land and thus no encroachment. The road exists in its original form. (Paras 12.2-12.3)
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO. 26364 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
Law Points
- Per the available text
- no legal principles or ratio were pronounced
- petition challenged lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice in proceedings under Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules
- 2011.
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (03) 55
WRIT PETITION NO. 26364 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
K.N. Nithish (for petitioners), M.S. Devaraju (for R1-R3), A. Nagarajappa (for R4), Bopanna Belliyappa (for R5 & R6)
Smt. Hombalamma, Sri Appaji
The Chief Executive Officer and Appellent Authority Zilla Panchayath Mandya, The Executive Officer and Competent Authority Taluk Panchayath Mandya, The Panchayath Development Officer Basaralu Grama Panchayath, Sri K.C. Shivaramu, The Tahsildar Mandya Taluk, Assistant Director of Land Records Mandya Taluk
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of removal of alleged encroachment and appellate order under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought writs of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.02.2025 of the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat (Respondent No.2), the appellate order dated 30.07.2025 of the Zilla Panchayat (Respondent No.1), and the notice dated 21.08.2025 issued by the Panchayat Development Officer (Respondent No.3).
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed absolute ownership and possession of their ancestral house properties, with no encroachment on Government land, and contended that the Panchayat authorities lacked jurisdiction and violated natural justice.
Previous Decisions
Civil Court in O.S. No. 210/2022 granted temporary injunction on 14.03.2022. High Court in W.P. No. 18300/2022 on 04.07.2024 directed consideration of representation under Rule 3(3). Executive Officer passed removal order on 13.02.2025. High Court in W.P. No. 7693/2025 on 18.03.2025 disposed of petition with liberty to appeal. Appellate Authority dismissed appeal on 30.07.2025.
Issues
Whether the Panchayat authorities had jurisdiction under the 2011 Rules to order removal of encroachment on land claimed to be gramathana.
Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without proper enquiry.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the writ of certiorari.
Whether the pendency of a civil suit with an injunction operates as a bar to the proceedings under the 2011 Rules.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that they are absolute owners in possession and have never encroached upon any Government road; the Khatha certificate shows the northern boundary is a road, and no intervening land exists.
The Panchayat Development Officer’s report dated 20.03.2023 confirmed that the disputed land is gramathana and that the authorities lack jurisdiction under the 2011 Rules.
The Executive Officer passed the removal order without spot inspection, enquiry, or recording evidence, in breach of natural justice.
Respondent No.4’s claim of encroachment is false and the civil suit is pending with an injunction order.
The term ‘gramathana land’ is misapplied; such lands are not Government lands subject to removal under the 2011 Rules.
Judgment Excerpts
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. (Para 8)
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. (Para 9)
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 petitioners. (Para 12.3)
The usage of the expression “gramathana land” by the respondents is wholly misconceived. (Para 12.4)
Procedural History
Petitioners filed O.S. No. 210/2022 and obtained temporary injunction on 14.03.2022. Respondent No.4 made representations for encroachment removal and filed W.P. No. 18300/2022; by order dated 04.07.2024, the High Court directed the Panchayat Development Officer to consider the representation under Rule 3(3) of the 2011 Rules and the Executive Officer to decide under Rule 4. Respondent No.2 passed an order on 13.02.2025 directing encroachment removal. Petitioners filed W.P. No. 7693/2025, which was disposed of on 18.03.2025 granting liberty to file an appeal and keeping the removal order in abeyance. Petitioners’ appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1) on 30.07.2025. The present writ petition was filed, and the Court reserved orders on 28.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstruction and Encroachment) Rules, 2011: Rule 3(3), Rule 4
