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

The Excessive Courtroom of Karnataka has allowed continuation of proceedings based mostly on a summons issued on Could 29, 2005 by Ramanagara tahsildar to Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy with regard to the allegations that he had encroached upon sure parts of presidency 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 handed the ex parte interim order whereas partly staying the June 19 interim order handed by a single choose, who had stayed each the summons issued by the tahsildar and a Authorities Order (GO), issued on January 28, 2025 constituting a Particular Investigating Crew (SIT) to look at the alleged encroachment of sure authorities lands by Mr. Kumaraswamy.

Keep towards SIT continues

Nevertheless, the Division Bench didn’t intrude with the one Choose’s order of staying the GO via which the SIT was arrange.

“We keep the impugned order handed by the one Choose to the extent that it stays the summons dated Could 25, until September 22, the subsequent date of listening to,” the Bench stated whereas ordering difficulty of discover to Mr. Kumaraswamy.

The Bench handed the interim order after State Advocate Common Shashi Kiran Shetty, in an attraction filed by the federal government towards single Choose’s interim order, contended that Part 195 of the Karnataka Land Income Act, 1964 was erroneously referred within the GO issued on January 28, and that the State authorities 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 Part 28 of the KLR Act via the tahsildar.

“Undisputedly, the tahsildar is empowered to take proof on oath and to summon any individual whom he considers essential 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 facility to conduct an inquiry,” the Bench noticed in its order whereas observing that “prima facie staying summons by the one Choose isn’t sustainable and no irreparable loss could be prompted if the inquiry being carried out by the tahsildar isn’t interdicted.”

It was argued on behalf of Mr. Kumaraswamy earlier than the one Choose that GO of establishing SIT had had no authorized existence within the eyes of regulation because it was not a “notification” because it was not printed within the official gazette.