Parallel proceeding for eviction from encroached lake land under lake conservation law is permissible during pendency of land grabbing case: Karnataka HC

The High Court of Karnataka has said that an authorised officer, acting under the provisions of the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (KTCDA) Act, 2014, can initiate a parallel proceedings for evicting persons allegedly encroaching lake land even when a separate proceeding is pending before the special court under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition (KLGP) Act, 2011.

“…this court is of the considered view that despite both enactments namely, the KLGP Act, 2011, and KTCDA Act, 2014, containing non-obstante clauses, the second proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 7 of the KLGP Act, carves out a clear legislative intent to permit parallel remedial action under any other law even when proceedings are initiated under the KLGP Act,” the court said.

Petition rejected

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order while rejecting the petitions filed by G.V. Manjunath and others, who had questioned the notice issued in November 2024 to them by the authorised officer under the KTCDA Act when a case of alleged land grabbing, registered in 2013, was pending in the special court for land grabbing cases.

The petitioners had claimed that they had valid khata from the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagata Palike for their buildings constructed in survey number 158/2AB of Vibhuthipura Village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru east taluk.

It was contended by the petitioners that the show cause notices for their eviction issued by the authorised officer cannot be sustained in law when the issue of encroachment is sub-judice before the special court.

Legally empowered

Rejecting the contention of the petitioners, the High Court said that the authorised officer, under KTCDA Act, is legally empowered to initiate an independent enquiry to ascertain whether the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of tank land and take necessary action.

“If, after conducting such an enquiry and affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard, it is found that the petitioners had encroached upon tank land, the authorised officer, being the competent statutory authority, is well within his powers to proceed to summarily evict the petitioners in accordance with provisions of the KTCDA Act,” the High Court said.

Pointing out that KTCDA Act states that if the authorised officer is found to have failed in discharging his duties or has acted in dereliction thereof, he shall be liable to departmental enquiry and may also be subjected to a monetary penalty of ₹10,000, the High Court said that this provision reinforces that the authorised officer is not left unchecked, and is answerable for omissions and commissions while discharging his responsibilities.