The Karnataka Excessive Court docket Monday allowed an interim plea of the state authorities to permit income officers to summon Union minister and Janata Dal Secular (JDS) chief H D Kumaraswamy in reference to an inquiry into allegations of land grabbing within the Bidadi area of the Ramanagara district, bordering Bengaluru.
The division bench of Chief Justice Vibu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi stayed a single-judge bench order of June 19 that imposed a keep on a summons issued to Kumaraswamy concerning land holdings within the Kethiganahalli village of Bidadi, which is now a part of the proposed Bangalore South district.
The only-judge bench stayed the summons beneath the Karnataka Land Income Act, 1964, after Kumaraswamy argued that an inquiry into the alleged land seize ordered by the state on January 28 was opposite to regulation and that the summons issued by income authorities on Might 29 was unlawful.
The interim order of June 19 was premised on the argument of Kumaraswamy, Minister of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, {that a} Particular Investigation Staff (SIT) constituted by the state authorities by means of the January 28 order was opposite to regulation since no notification beneath Part 195 of the Karnataka Land Income Act, 1964 had been issued by the state for the creation of the SIT.
On Monday, in the middle of the listening to of a writ enchantment filed by the state authorities towards the June 19 order of the only choose, Advocate Common Okay Shashikiran Shetty informed the division bench {that a} reference to Part 195 of the KLRA, 1964, was an error within the January 28 order of the federal government to represent an SIT to probe the land seize allegations.
The AG argued that the state authorities had not delegated any of its powers to the SIT as claimed by Kumaraswamy in his petition earlier than the only choose and that the summons of Might 29 was issued beneath the KLRA by the state by means of the income officer.
The division bench famous that the KLRA grants powers to income officers to take proof, summon individuals to present proof and produce paperwork beneath part 28 of the regulation.
Story continues under this advert
“Undisputedly, the Tahsildar is empowered to take proof on oath and to summon any individual whom he considers mandatory for the aim of any inquiry which the officer is legally empowered to undertake. There seems to be no cavil that the Tahsildar has the ability to conduct an inquiry,” the division bench famous.
Given the powers of income officers, “we’re prima facie of the view that the impugned order staying summons dated 29.05.2025 shouldn’t be sustainable. Additional, no irreparable loss can be prompted if the inquiry being carried out by the Tahsildar shouldn’t be interdicted,” the HC mentioned.
“We, accordingly, keep the impugned order to the extent that it stays the summons dated 29.05.2025, until the following date of listening to,” the HC mentioned whereas posting the enchantment for a subsequent listening to on September 22.
Background of allegations towards Kumaraswamy and others
The Congress authorities in Karnataka ordered the structure of an SIT to probe alleged land seize by a number of outstanding folks within the Ramanagara area bordering Bengaluru in January, together with properties now belonging to Kumaraswamy.
Story continues under this advert
The federal government knowledgeable the Karnataka Excessive Court docket on January 29 concerning the order on January 28 for the creation of an SIT to probe the alleged land seize in components of the Ramanagara district. The state made the submissions in the middle of a listening to on a contempt plea filed towards it by an NGO for failing to recuperate land recognized as being encroached upon.
In 2020, following a petition filed by the NGO Samaj Parivartana Samudaya, the state authorities gave an endeavor to the HC to recuperate authorities land that was allegedly grabbed within the Kethiganahalli village of Bidadi by influential individuals. The identical 12 months, the NGO filed a contempt petition after the state authorities did not report compliance with its endeavor to recuperate land.
The origin of the allegations
Based mostly on a criticism of land grabbing filed by former Mandya MP G Madegowda, the Karnataka Lokayukta sought a report in 2014 from the native authorities within the then Bengaluru Rural area on the land information in Kethiganahalli village of Bidadi.
Kumaraswamy, his shut relative and former MLA D C Thamanna, and an aunt of Kumaraswamy had been named within the criticism by the previous MP for allegedly grabbing authorities land with a market worth of over Rs 130 crore on the time.
Story continues under this advert
In an order dated August 5, 2014, the Karnataka Lokayukta ordered the restoration of presidency land if there have been no information of grants in favour of personal individuals.
“The Tahsildar himself is among the individuals who has submitted this joint report. It’s an admitted indisputable fact that these lands bearing ‘sy.nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 19 are the Authorities lands i.e, gomala. The individuals who’re discovered to be in possession of those lands talked about in Annexure-6 with sketch no.6 declare that they’ve bought these lands from personal individuals and that a few of these lands had been gifted to them,” the Lokayukta mentioned in 2014 concerning the land information.
The Lokayukta directed a full probe by income officers and said that “whether it is discovered that such grants of land weren’t there then to take mandatory authorized steps for the restoration of the possession of the Authorities land from the encroachers and in addition to provoke legal motion towards the individuals discovered trespassing the land and towards the responsible officers/officers of the federal government”.
After the state authorities delayed the implementation of the Lokayukta instructions of 2014, the NGO Samaj Parivartan Samuday approached the Karnataka HC with a writ petition and the court docket in an order on January 14, 2020, famous a submission of the state AG “that the state will adjust to and implement the order dated August 5, 2014 handed by the Karnataka Lokayukta inside a interval of three months” to dispose the petition.
Story continues under this advert
In December 2020, the NGO filed a civil contempt of court docket petition towards state authorities officers for failure to adjust to the August 5, 2014, instructions of the Lokayukta regardless of the assurances given earlier within the HC.