Karnataka High Court allows continuation of proceedings based on summons to H.D. Kumaraswamy on the allegation of encroachment of government lands

The High Court of Karnataka has allowed continuation of proceedings based on a summons issued on May 29, 2005 by Ramanagara tahsildar to Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy with regard to the allegations that he had encroached upon certain portions of government lands, adjoining the lands owned by him at Kethaganahalli village of Bidadi hobli in Ramanagara taluk of Bengaluru South district.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi passed the ex parte interim order while partly staying the June 19 interim order passed by a single judge, who had stayed both the summons issued by the tahsildar and a Government Order (GO), issued on January 28, 2025 constituting a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to examine the alleged encroachment of certain government lands by Mr. Kumaraswamy.

Stay against SIT continues

However, the Division Bench did not interfere with the single Judge’s order of staying the GO through which the SIT was set up.

“We stay the impugned order passed by the single Judge to the extent that it stays the summons dated May 25, till September 22, the next date of hearing,” the Bench said while ordering issue of notice to Mr. Kumaraswamy.

The Bench passed the interim order after State Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, in an appeal filed by the government against single Judge’s interim order, contended that Section 195 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was erroneously referred in the GO issued on January 28, and that the State government had not delegated any of its powers to the SIT. The A-G claimed that the summons issued by the tahsildar was as per the Section 28 of the KLR Act through the tahsildar.

“Undisputedly, the tahsildar is empowered to take evidence on oath and to summon any person whom he considers necessary for the purpose of any inquiry which the officer is legally empowered to undertake. There appears to be no cavil that the tahsildar has the power to conduct an inquiry,” the Bench observed in its order while observing that “prima facie staying summons by the single Judge is not sustainable and no irreparable loss would be caused if the inquiry being conducted by the tahsildar is not interdicted.”

It was argued on behalf of Mr. Kumaraswamy before the single Judge that GO of setting up SIT had had no legal existence in the eyes of law as it was not a “notification” as it was not published in the official gazette.