Karnataka High Court
WP/25168/2024 of SMT.KISANPYARI Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 20 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010530162024 NC: 2026:KHC:36989-DB WP No. 25168 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 25168 OF 2024 (KLGP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 25168 OF 2024 (KLGP)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. KISANPYARI,
W/O. GIRIDHARLAL TOSHNIWAL,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT. TIKOTA TAUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 130.
2.
SRI. MAHESH,
S/O. GIRIDHARLAL TOSHNIWAL,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT. TIKOTA TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 130.
3.
SMT. NILAM,
W/O LATE MANOJ TOSHNIWAL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT. TIKOTA TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 130.
4.
MISS. PALAK,
D/O LATE MANOJ TOSHNIWAL,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
R/AT. TIKOTA TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 130.
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT. NILAM MANOJ TOSHNIWAL.
5.
MISS. MADURA,
D/O LATE MANOJ TOSHNIWAL,
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
R/AT. TIKOTA TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 130.
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AS NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. NILAM MANOJ TOSHNIWAL.
6.
SRI.MUKESH,
S/O. GIRIDHARLAL TOSHNIWAL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT. TIKOTA TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 130.
7.
SMT. MANISHA,
W/O. SUNIL RATHI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT. MATOSHREE VRUDRASHARAM
BACK SIDE, KARVE NAGAR,
PUNE - 411 052.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA, KANAKADASA BADAVANE,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
3.
THE TAHASILDAR,
VIJAYAPURA TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101.
4.
THE FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
TIKOTA CIRCLE, TIKOTA TALUK,
VIJAYPURA - 586 130.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN L.G.C(T) NO.1733/2017 (O.S.668/2013)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING
PROHIBITION
SPECIAL
COURT
AT
BENGALURU
(CCH-2)
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings pending before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru in L.G.C(T) No.1733/2017 (OS.No.668/2013).
2. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Land Grabbing Court in the aforesaid proceedings, whereby the application of the petitioners for remitting the matter back to the civil suit has been rejected.
HC-KAR
3. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed the original civil suit in OS.No.668/2013 for declaration and injunction etc., in respect of the Government land in Sy.No.241 measuring 2 acres 1 guntas of land situated at Tikota Village, Bijapur Taluk, Bijapur District. The petitioners are neither the grantee nor the lessee nor the licensee of the said land, given by the Government. No order has been placed on record to substantiate the petitioner's right to be in possession of the said land. Admittedly, it is a Government land. The long continuation of possession in the Government land would not entitle the petitioners to seek a decree of declaration inasmuch as no right over the Government land can be claimed on the basis of the adverse possession.
4. In the written statement filed by the revenue authorities before the Civil Court, it has been specifically stated that the land in question is a Government land and the petitioners/plaintiffs are in an unauthorized occupation and possession of the said land. If one reads the definition
HC-KAR
of land and land grabber as provided under Section 2(e) and 2(f) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing and Prohibition Act 2011, it is evident that the petitioner would come within the definition of the 'land grabber'. Section 20(1) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing and Prohibition Act, specifically provides that all proceedings pending in respect of the Government land where there are allegations of Land Grabbing, the proceedings would stand transferred to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Court. Therefore, the proceedings were transferred way back in the year 2017.
5. We find no substance in this writ petition inasmuch as admittedly the land in question is a Government land and the stand of the Government is unequivocal that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation and possession of the Government land. Under the definition of Section 2(e) of the Karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, the petitioners would be treated as land grabber.
HC-KAR
6. We therefore, dismiss this writ petition. Let the Karnataka Land Grabbing Court proceeds with the trial and decides the same expeditiously in accordance with law. Any observations made herein above shall not be treated as final findings on the merits of the case, insofar as the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is concerned.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
PK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6; ct-vn