WP/8308/2026 of M/S WHITEFILED DEVELOPERS Vs MR JAGAN KUMAR J on 23 April 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the proceedings pending before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Special Court, Bengaluru in LGC(P)No.733/2025 against the petitioners, as well as the order dated 12.11.2025 passed therein, whereby a temporary injunction was granted restraining the petitioner from carrying out any further construction, development activities, alienation, sale or transfer over the alleged Government land situated in Sy.No.1 of Kadugodi Plantation Village.

2. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition are noted hereunder: The subject land was initially allotted in favour of Ms/.BPL Electronics Limited and its subsidiary companies. Subsequently, BPL has been wound up under the aegis of this Court and its assets were liquidated. The petitioner had purchased 25 acres of land in Sy.Nos.1, 51, 52, 53, 54-Part, 55, 56 and 58 and other survey numbers of Kadugodi Plantation Village, in an auction conducted by the secured creditor with official liquidator. Consequently, a sale deed was executed by KIADB in

HC-KAR

favour of the petitioner on 04.12.2025 (Annexure-M). The petitioner after getting their plan sanctioned by the KIADB is carrying on construction of commercial complex i.e, IT/ITES. While the construction was in full swing, respondent No.1 has filed a complaint before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Special Court in LGC(P)No.733/2025, in which the impugned order dated 12.11.2025, restraining the petitioners from carrying out further construction etc., has been passed.

3. The allegation in the complaint is that the land in question is forest and Government land and that the petitioner has unauthorizedly encroached upon the said land and are putting up unauthorized construction.

4. The issue whether these lands in question constitute forest land or it is not a forest land has already been finally decided in earlier proceedings that went up to the Supreme Court.

5. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2012 passed in W.P.No.7200/2008 connected with W.P.Nos.29765-66/2009, held that the land in question was not State Forest under the Forest Rules, 1878 and the notification

HC-KAR

issued under Regulation-23 declaring the said land as the forest land was held to be unsustainable. The submission of the State that it is a deemed forest under the provisions of Section 23 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 was also rejected. The submission against the execution of lease deeds by the KIADB in respect of the said land were also repelled in the said judgment.

6. The said judgment and order was challenged by the State Authorities by filing the writ appeals. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeals and upheld the judgment and order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench went a step further, precluding the State Government from claiming that the land in question was forest land and after the notification was issued under the provisions of the KIAD Act for acquisition of the land and handing over the possession to KIADB. The Division Bench also held that the action initiated by the officials of the Forest Department and the State declaring the said land as a deemed forest was bad in law.

HC-KAR

7. The Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court vide SLP(Civil) Diary No.10430/2020 against the said judgment of the Division Bench came to be dismissed in limine vide order dated 19.11.2020.

8. The respondent No.1, despite service, has not put in appearance in this writ petition. The petitioner has paid the consideration for the land which it acquired through Court sale and the KIADB has executed lease-cum-sale deed in favour of the petitioner, as mentioned above. Once, it has been finally concluded that the land in question is neither forest land nor the Government land and the KIADB itself has executed the lease-cum-sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to have encroached upon the land in question, for which the complaint was filed by the respondent No.1.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the impugned proceedings in LGC(P) No.733/2025 are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, we cannot allow the process of the Court to be misused by respondent No.1. Therefore, the following:

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceedings in LGC(P) No.733/2025 pending before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru are quashed.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RKA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4