Land-grabbing case: Karnataka HC stays order putting on hold summons to H D Kumaraswamy, SIT probe

author-image
NewsDrum Desk
New Update

Bengaluru, Sept 8 (PTI) Karnataka High Court on Monday stayed a single judge's interim order that had put on hold both the constitution of an SIT and the summons issued to Union Minister for Heavy Industries, H D Kumaraswamy, in a land-grabbing case.

Earlier in June, the single judge had stayed the state government's January 28 order creating a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) as well as a May 29 summons issued by a tehsildar to Kumaraswamy.

The state government challenged that decision before a division bench.

Hearing the appeal, Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi observed that the tehsildar holds legal authority to summon and record evidence during inquiries.

"There appears to be no caveat that the tehsildar does not have the power to conduct an inquiry... the order staying the summons will not be sustainable," the bench noted.

The judges posted the matter for further hearing on November 26.

The state argued that the single judge's ruling was based on a misinterpretation of Section 195 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The SIT, headed by Bengaluru Regional Commissioner Amlan Aditya Biswas, was tasked with probing alleged encroachment of 14.04 acres of government land.

Following the SIT's formation, revenue officials conducted surveys and issued summons to Kumaraswamy.

Kumaraswamy, however, had contended before the single judge of the Karnataka High Court that the proceedings were invalid since no notification had been issued under Section 195 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act or Section 8 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011-- both of which, he argued, are mandatory for delegating powers.

He maintained that, in the absence of such notification, the SIT and subsequent actions of revenue authorities were legally untenable.

However, the state government submitted that the summons issued on May 29 were under Section 28 of the Act and therefore valid, and that no delegation of powers under Section 195 was involved. PTI COR JR ADB