17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 15511-14 OF 2013 [GM - RES] PIL

BETWEEN:

1. Samaj Parivartana SamudayaA Society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960,having its principal office at‘Ashadeep’, Jayanagar Cross, Saptapur,Dharwad – 580 001KarnatakaRepresented by its Executive DirectorSri S.R.Hiremath Petitioner No.1

2. Sri Deepak.C.N.S/o C.M.Nagaraju,Aged 34 years,Residing at No.723, 13th Cross,1st Phase, BEL Layout,Bharathi Nagar,BangaloreKarnataka Petitioner No.2

3. Dr S.L.PawarS/o Lakshman Rao PawarAged 67 years,Residing close to Head Post Office,Ranebennur – 581 115Haveri DistrictKarnataka Petitioner No.3

4. Sri Raghavendra KushtagiS/o Venkoba AcharAged 63 years,Residing at No.2-6-67/70Manik Prabhu Layout,Near Dental College,RaichurKarnataka Petitioner No.4

AND:

1. Union of IndiaThrough its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and ForestsParyavaran Bhawan,

Respondent No.1

18

CGO Complex, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi – 110 003

2. State of KarnatakaThrough its Chief SecretaryVidhana SoudhaBangalore -560 001Karnataka

Respondent No.2

3. Karnataka Public Lands CorporationRepresented by its Managing Director2nd Floor, Deputy Commissioners Office Building,K.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 009Karnataka

Respondent No.3

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Petitioners above named most respectfully

submit as under:-

1. The short but important question of law that arises for the

consideration of this Hon’ble Court in this case is:

Is it lawful for our executive Government to

deliberately, knowingly and intentionally refuse to act

when it is provided with specific, definite and actual

information that certain Government lands have been

encroached upon by private persons through

clandestine, illegal, manipulative, corrupt or fraudulent

means?

2. The address of the parties for the purposes of issuance of

Court Notice, Summons etc., from this Hon’ble Court is as

shown in the cause title and the petitioners may also be

served through their counsel, Sri K.V.Dhananjay and Sri

Gopala Krishna, Advocates, No.296, Magadi Main Road,

Kamakshipalya, Bangalore – 560 079.

Facts of the case:

19

3. The Petitioners are filing this Writ Petition in terms of Article

226 of the Constitution of India solely in public interest. The

petitioners are aggrieved with the fact of extensive,

sustained, clandestine, unbridled and continuing

encroachment of public lands in the State of Karnataka. The

fact of such encroachment is documented by no less than

the Karnataka State Legislature and by the Executive

Government of Karnataka. In this regard, the Reports

submitted by the Joint Legislature Committee of the

Legislature of Karnataka and the subsequent report of the

Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection do

prove to a legal certainty that vested interests within the

Government are primarily responsible for massive

encroachment of Government lands.

4. The aforesaid Reports show that nearly 11,00,000 acres

(Eleven Lakh acres) of Government lands have been

allowed to be encroached by private persons and vested

interests across the State of Karnataka. This estimate is not

a mere guess work but is a product of careful verification of

the records, enquiry and spot inspection in many cases by

the Karnataka Legislature Committee and by a dedicated

Task Force appointed by our State Government. Of the

11,00,000 acres (Eleven Lakh acres) of encroached upon

Government land, 1,65,796 acres (One Lakh Sixty Five

Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety acres) are forest

lands. Of this 1,65,795 acres (One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand

Seven Hundred and Ninety Six acres) of forest lands,

1,04,497 acres (One Lakh Four Thousand Four Hundred and

Ninety Seven acres) are in the ecologically sensitive

Western Ghats in three districts alone.

5. Applying the Government published guidance values (which

are often conservative) wherever appropriate, the value of

such encroached upon lands has been estimated by the

Government Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its

20

Protection to be around Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One

Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only).

6. In perspective, a sum of Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One

Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only) is far larger than

the loss estimated to have been caused by corruption

involved in the 2G spectrum scam and the illegal mining

scam in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

7. The Petitioners are also filing this petition with a prayer for

strict compliance with the Order dated 28-Jan-2011 passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

No.1132 of 2011 i.e., Jagpal Singh and others v. State of

Punjab and others AIR 2011 SC 1123 and in W.P. No.202 of

1995, i.e. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. It is

submitted that vide the said Orders, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court had directed that effective steps be taken for the

protection of public lands from encroachment, by all States.

Despite the aforesaid Order, the State of Karnataka has not

merely failed to take effective steps for compliance with the

said Order but has intentionally and knowingly disbanded a

dedicated task force called ‘The Task Force for Recovery of

Public Land and its Protection’ whose purpose was the same

as the direction contained in the aforesaid Orders of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8. After the said disbandment, the Petitioners, vide letter

dated 25-July-2012 had requested the Chief Secretary,

Government of Karnataka to take urgent and necessary

steps for the implementation of the Task Force Report dated

30-Jun-2011. Faced with no response from the Government,

the petitioners wrote to the Chief Secretary again on 27 -

Aug-2012. As of today, the Petitioners have not heard

anything in response to their representation to the

Government of Karnataka. Faced with this situation, these

21

petitioners have realised that there is no further recourse

available to them than to approach this Hon’ble Court.

9. The Petitioner No.1, Samaj Parivartana Samudaya is a

Society registered under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, 1960 under No.162/83-84 dated 06-Mar-

1984. The activities of the Petitioner No.1 encompass

different fields such as prevention of pollution in the

Tungabhadra River in Karnataka due to lax supervision of

polluting industries, safeguarding of common lands, social

forestry, wasteland development, the promotion of

decentralized nurseries and the conservation and protection

of the Western Ghats. The Petitioner No.1 works in close

collaboration with many other non-Governmental and

humanitarian organisations. Amongst other cases filed in

courts, the Petitioner No.1 was the petitioner in Writ Petition

(Civil) No.562 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India bringing to its notice, the fact of widespread and large

scale illegal mining in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

Further, the founder of the Petitioner No.1, Sri S.R.Hiremath,

was the applicant in IA No.60 in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said IA concerned

the forest and tribal issues in the Bastar region of the then

Madhya Pradesh (now Chattisgarh). Further, the Petitioner

No.1 had also filed Writ Petition No.35 of 1987 seeking

restoration and restitution of 75000 acres of forest lands

from a joint sector company called Karnataka Pulpwood

Limited to the village communities in four districts of

Karnataka. In short, the Petitioner No.1 has been working in

the arena of environment, forests, good governance and

anti-corruption.

10. The Petitioner No.2, Sri Deepak.C.N., is a social activist who

has rendered his services to various social awareness

programmes. The Petitioner No.2 was involved with

‘Janaagraha’, a non-governmental organisation to create

22

awareness among citizens in matters related to governance

for over a period of five years.

11. The Petitioner No.3, Dr S.L.Pawar is a doctor of medicine by

profession and hails from Ranebennur town in Haveri

district. The Petitioner No.3 has served as the Secretary and

President of the Indian Medical Association, Ranebennur.

The Petitioner No.3 has also served as the President of

‘NEEDS’, a non-governmental organization for four years.

12. The Petitioner No.4, Sri Raghavendra Kushtagi is a social

activist and is currently the President of Hyderabad

Karnataka Janandolana Kendra. This organisation had

fought for the successful implementation of Article 371 of

the Constitution for the four districts of Karnataka i.e., Bidar,

Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary. He is also serving as the

Executive of Janasangarama Parishad, a body which has as

its aim, the protection of natural resources and other land

related issues.

13. The Respondent No.1, the Union of India, is represented by

the Ministry of Environment and Forests. This Ministry is the

nodal agency in the administrative structure of the Central

Government for the planning, promotion, co-ordination and

overseeing the implementation of India’s environmental and

forestry policies and programmes. It is the solemn duty of

the Union of India to oversee the implementation of its

policies and programs relating to conservation of the

country's natural resources including its lakes and rivers, its

biodiversity, forests and wildlife and to ensure the

protection of animal life and the prevention and abatement

of pollution.

14. The Respondent No.2 i.e., State of Karnataka is the

custodian and legal owner of all public lands within the

territory of the State of Karnataka. It is the guardian of the

common lands which are a common and shared heritage

23

not only of the current citizenry of the State, but of all

future citizens. It is the solemn duty of the State to ensure

that such common lands are preserved intact and not

usurped illegally. The Respondent No.2 is also entrusted

with the legal and constitutional duty to ensure strict and

effective implementation of the laws already in place to

protect and preserve public lands.

15. The Respondent No.3, Karnataka Public Lands Corporation

Limited is a body corporate that has been specifically

incorporated by the Government of Karnataka with the

avowed objective of protecting government lands recovered

from encroachment. The fact that a body corporate even

came to be established to keep a vigil over formerly

encroached upon Government lands itself speaks volumes

about the extent of such encroachment.

16. On 17-Jun-2006, the Legislature of Karnataka had appointed

a Joint Legislature Committee comprising of 14 MLAs and 6

MLCs under the chairmanship of Sri A.T.Ramaswamy to

inquire into and submit a detailed Report on encroachment

of Government lands in Bangalore and its adjoining areas.

During its tenure, this Joint Legislature Committee (referred

to hereinafter as ‘JLC’, for short) received 1,101 complaints,

conducted 40 meetings, visited 90 sites of encroachments

over several days and conducted over 200 internal review

meetings. Numerous representations, information,

grievance and complaints received by the JLC were

promptly registered and enquired into by it. Twenty Eight

(28) different departments and statutory bodies were

summoned before the JLC and were asked to inform about

the various aspects of implementation of cases referred to

them by the JLC.

17. After the aforesaid detailed enquiry, the JLC submitted two

reports on 01-Feb-2007 and 26-Jul-2007 to the Karnataka

24

Legislature. Original versions of the Joint Legislature

Committee reports dated 01-Feb-2007 and 26-Jul-2007 are

produced herewith and marked as Annexure - A and

Annexure - B respectively.

18. The interim and final JLC reports conclude that various State

instrumentalities such as the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike which is nothing but the Bangalore Municipal

Corporation, the Bangalore Development Authority, City and

Town Municipal Councils etc., have grossly and knowingly

failed in their legal and statutory duty to protect

Government and public lands. Instead, these bodies have

found it convenient to express helplessness and have in

many cases, acted as active participants, abettors and

promoters in land grabbing crimes in tandem with members

of organised land grabbers.

19. At this context, it becomes necessary to note the role of one

Sri V.Balasubramanian (IAS), Retd. Sri V.Balasubramanian

was the adviser to the JLC and had previously held the office

of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka.

Eager to know the model that had been implemented in the

neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh to combat the evil of

land grabbing, Sri V.Balasubramanian along with the

Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation and the

Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department had visited

the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh to study the

functioning of the Special Courts established under the

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing

(Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the mechanisms adopted by the

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and the Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad for preventing encroachments.

Pursuant to the aforesaid study and the JLC report, the

Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Bill, 2007 was tabled

and passed by both the Houses of the Karnataka

Legislature, unanimously. Moreover, the Revenue

25

Department had also piloted a legislation for incorporating

an amendment to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

(‘KLR Act’) to separately criminalise acts of land grabbing

(Section 192-A of the KLR Act).

20. Although the JLC did submit very elaborate and detailed

reports to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the

Karnataka Legislative Assembly itself came to be dissolved

in 2007 and the JLC accordingly, stood defunct consequent

to the imposition of the President’s rule in the State. Later,

upon formation of a newly elected Government, no

immediate action was taken to implement the

recommendations of the JLC.

21. The JLC Reports: (Note: The word ‘Halli’ in Kannada means a

‘village’ and countless city regions in the State still carry the

name ‘Halli’ though such a ‘halli’ in the heart of say, the city

of Bangalore, Mysore or Belgaum is nothing more than a

vestige from the past). The following findings from the JLC

reports may be noted:

22. An area of 1099 acres of forest land has been encroached

by 312 persons in Bangalore Urban District Forest Division.

Further, 313 acres of tank bed lands have been similarly

encroached upon by 553 persons. The Bannerghatta

National Park which spans over 7374 acres has also been

encroached by 813 different persons to an extent of 767

acres.

23. Certain real estate businesses in conspiracy with a few

builders from Hyderabad have created bogus sale records in

respect of forest land in Uttarahalli Manavarathe Kaval

Minor Forest and have therefore grabbed 344 acres of

pristine forest lands. Out of this grabbed area, the

Bangalore Development Authority has knowingly proceeded

to acquire 42 acres in the name of ‘Banashankari VI Stage

Project’ and has, very surprisingly, passed an award for

26

payment of Rs.3.6 Crores in favour of persons claiming to

be unauthorized cultivators. This land lies within 15

kilometres from the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

limits and is therefore, expressly barred from being

regularised in terms of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964. Even with full awareness of this prohibition, the

Bangalore Development Authority and the Land Tribunal

have disregarded this and have passed compensation

awards in respect of the said forest land in favour of private

persons.

24. In December 2008, the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation

Limited i.e., the Respondent No.5 was incorporated with

Rupees Five (5) Crores of paid up capital inter alia to protect

government lands recovered from encroachment.

25. Thereafter, in order to effectively implement the

recommendations of the JLC, a dedicated body called as the

‘Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection’

was constituted under the chairmanship of the former

Additional Chief Secretary, Sri V.Balasubramanian, IAS

(Retd.). This was done through a Government Notification

Vide G.O. No.RD 556/LGB/2009 dated 19-Sept-2009 which

did specify that as part of its work, this Task Force was

required to issue directions to the several Government

departments and statutory bodies to take specific and

appropriate action to remove encroachments. Thereby, this

Task Force was legally established for the purpose of

ensuring the implementation of various laws and statutes

that were already in existence to recover encroached public

land. Unlike the objective of the JLC which was confined to

address the encroachment of public lands in Bangalore and

its surrounding areas, the jurisdiction of this Task Force was

extended to cover the entire territory of the State of

Karnataka and to all Government lands including lands

vested in statutory and local bodies. The “Task Force for

27

Recovery of Public Land and its Protection” shall be referred

to hereinafter as “Task Force”.

26. This Task Force undertook enormous efforts to identify

encroached public lands throughout the State of Karnataka.

It took various steps such as conduct of spot inspections,

tracing the history of land records in respect of encroached

upon property, verification and scrutiny of property

documents and Government records and the issuing of

numerous and co-ordinated instructions to the Government

authorities to take immediate and time-bound steps for the

recovery of encroached public lands.

27. The Petitioners state that the Task Force had not only

issued a detailed statement of its activities in the form of a

Final Report but had also issued or otherwise ensured

issuance of numerous reports in respect of certain glaring

instances of encroachment. The report of the Task Force

itself records that its efforts to recover encroached public

land were often defeated primarily on account of lack of

administrative will. Few such instances of this Task Force

going about its task and the sudden, calculated and

unlawful interferences that it witnessed may be noted

below:

28. This Task Force had conducted a very detailed investigation

in respect of encroachments in Gollahalli village, Anekal

Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The Task Force report inter

alia states that a road was formed in the middle of a lake

land encroaching nearly 2 acres and 11 guntas of lake land.

When the Task Force had co-ordinated a team of people

from various departments to demolish the encroachments

therein on a particular day and the entire machinery of

people and tools from the Taluk office, Deputy

Commissioner’s office along and the members of the

Special Task Force were on the spot to carry out demolition

28

of such encroachments, the persons in illegal occupation of

such land came forth with an order of injunction, not from

any competent Court of law, but from the Hon’ble Chief

Minister of Karnataka to the effect that no action be taken

at all to remove any encroachments and that all

encroachments be left in place as they were.

29. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the aforesaid stay

order could have only been issued for the protection of

certain vested interests and not for any public good.

Obviously, such intervention was not merely illegal but had

the effect of sending out a loud and clear message to all

concerned that the Government stance against

encroachment of public lands was largely ceremonial and

nobody, including this dedicated Task Force was meant to

take the Government’s professed objective with any degree

of seriousness.

30. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the Karnataka Public

Land Corporation had requested the Chief Secretary of the

State through a letter dated 19-Dec-2009 for vacating the

stay Order/withdrawal of the directions given on 16-Dec-

2009. It would surprise the right thinking members of our

society that nothing ever came of the said request from the

said Government body to the Chief Secretary of the State. A

copy of the stay order issued by the Hon’ble Chief Minister

bearing No. MuMu/203/grutha/2009 dated 16-Dec-2009 is

produced herewith and marked as Annexure – C. A copy of

the letter dated 19-Dec-2009 addressed by the Managing

Director of Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited to

the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka is produced

herewith and marked as Annexure - D.

31. This Task Force had inquired into and found out multiple

instances of encroachment of forest lands by certain

plantation owners. Consequently, it had addressed various

29

letters to the concerned departments to take specific

remedial action. To the utter shock and dismay of any right

thinking citizen, the Secretary to the Chief Minister had

issued a note dated 19-Nov-2010 ordering that no

precipitative action be taken without considering all the

submissions or explanations of the alleged encroachers and

even thereafter, nothing was to be done until a final

decision was worked out by the Government.

32. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the aforesaid note

had been issued merely to benefit certain vested interests

and to stall the legitimate effort of the task force. A copy of

the aforesaid note bearing reference No. PSCM/3495/2010

dated 19-Nov-2010 issued by the Secretary to the Hon’ble

Chief Minister is produced herewith and marked as

Annexure - E.

33. Thus, the Petitioners respectfully state that the efforts of

the Task Force were repeatedly frustrated by such acts and

numerous other omissions of other Government agencies.

34. At this juncture, it is pertinent to submit that the

Government of Karnataka had set up 16 different task

forces such as the Knowledge Commission, Vision Group of

Karnataka 2020, etc. One of these 16 task forces was the

aforesaid ‘Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its

Protection’. For reasons that still continue to surprise the

right thinking members of our society, the Government of

Karnataka, that is, Respondent No.2 published through a

Notification that the Task Force shall be disbanded with

effect from 04-Jul-2011 vide GO No.RD 897 LGB 2010. A

copy of the said order issued by Respondent No.2 bearing

number GO No.RD 897 LGB 2010 dated 04-Jan-2011 is

produced herewith and marked as Annexure – F. The

reasons apparently stated in the said Order were incorrect

to the very knowledge of the Government. All the same, the

30

other 15 task forces continued to remain in operation after

the disbandment of this Task Force although the work of

some of those Task Forces would have greatly benefited by

the continued operation of this Task Force. The action of the

Government of Karnataka in unlawfully disbanding the said

Task Force is an act that cannot be justified under the label

of ‘administrative discretion’ in view of the circumstances

that preceded such disbandment. If it was the intention of

the Government, in disbanding the Task Force, to relieve

the encroachers of their worries, anxieties and fears, the

Government may be said to have succeeded thereby. A

tabular chart detailing the various task forces/commissions

that were set up by the Government of Karnataka is

produced herewith and marked as Annexure - G.

35. This Task Force issued its Report on 30-Jun-2011 and titled

it as ‘Greed and Connivance’. This Report was duly

submitted to the Government of Karnataka on 04-Jul-2011.

(This report shall be referred to hereinafter as the ‘Task

Force Report’). However, the Respondent No.2 appears to

have declined to accept the Task Force Report on account

of alleged procedural irregularities. A copy of the Task Force

Report dated 30-Jun-2011 issued by the Task Force is

produced herewith and marked as Annexure - H.

36. After the submission of the Task Force Report, his

Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka took serious note of

the large scale encroachment of public lands and addressed

a letter on 13-Sep-2011 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of

Karnataka inquiring into the steps taken by the Government

of Karnataka towards the implementation of the

recommendations in the Task Force Report. It was reflected

in the said letter that the loss to the public exchequer on

account of such encroachment of public lands is in the

amount of approximately Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One

Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only). A copy of the said

31

letter dated 13-Sep-2011 addressed by His Excellency, the

Governor of Karnataka to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of

Karnataka is produced herewith and marked as Annexure –

J.

37. The Petitioners have reliably learnt that His Excellency, the

Governor of Karnataka had inquired into and had also

instructed the Respondents to act upon the Report and to

take action for recovering encroached public lands. The

Petitioners have further reliably learnt that the following

three committees have been constituted thereafter, by the

Respondent No.2:

(i) Committee – Revenue Department, headed by

Secretary to the Revenue Department. The Petitioners

have learnt that whilst a meeting or two have been

conducted, no concrete steps have been taken so far.

(ii) Committee – Forest Department, headed by the

Principal Secretary, Forests, Environment and Ecology.

The Petitioners have learnt that no meetings have

been conducted by the Committee and that the Forest

Department is not even aware of the constitution of

such a Committee in respect of land grabbing.

(iii) Committee – Urban Development, headed by the

Secretary, Urban Development Department. The

Petitioners have learnt that no meetings have been

conducted thus far, by this Committee.

38. The Task Force Report and JLC Reports (both these reports

shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘Reports’) emphatically

state that despite various legal provisions for the protection

against encroachment and for removal of encroached public

lands, blatant encroachments of public lands have

continued primarily due to the intentional refusal or

indifference of various ‘competent authorities’. Between

intentional omission and indifference, these are the

32

intermediate factors at play - ignorance of proper legal

powers, lethargy, fear of consequences arising from vexing

those in power, aggressive interference by powerful

interests and last but not the least, collusion with

encroachers. The Task Force quotes the JLC Reports and

proceeds to state that the powers vested in various officers

are in fact, wasted on them.

39. The Reports state that the estimated value of the

encroachments in the Bangalore Urban District consisting of

the five Taluks of Bangalore North, Bangalore North

Additional, Bangalore East, Bangalore South and Anekal

Taluks, on a conservative estimate of Rupees One and half

(1.5) Crore per acre, on average, is Rupees Forty Thousand

(40,000) Crores.

40. The JLC Report enumerates the details of encroachment,

which is extracted herein below (in respect of Bangalore

Urban District):

Sl.No.

Name of the Department

Encroachment in acres

Approximate value in

Crores

1. Revenue

Department

9294.00 18,588.00

2. Bangalore

Development

Authority

2,878.20 5,236.25

3. Muzrai 38.09 165.55

4. a) Forest

b) Tank bed

719.34

219.20

1,877.08

5. Karnataka Industrial

Area Development

Board

33.22 66.44

6. Town Municipal 8.08 32.32

33

Councils/ City

Municipal Councils

7. Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike

7.08 46.00

8. Karnataka Housing

Board

34.08 152.00

9. Wakf Board 259.33 780.00

10. Housing Co-

operative Societies

86.19 170.00

11. Bangalore University 11.22 96.11

12. Transport

Department

3.31 18.00

13. Health Department

(NIMHANS)

3.20 25.00

14. Animal Husbandry

Department

45.00 100.00

15. Slum Clearance

Board

12.19 25.00

Total 13,614.37 27,377.75

41. The Reports states that the extensive growth of Bangalore

in the last 20 years has resulted in an exponential increase

in the value of land, consequently, resulting in extensive

encroachments of government land. Therefore, the Task

Force Report observes that Bangalore’s rapid development

has created a very lucrative real estate industry which has

beckoned an organised ring of specialists whose work is to

encroach upon Government and Public lands with the active

blessings and involvement of persons in power within and in

the vicinity of Bangalore. The extensive growth in the

Bangalore Urban and Bangalore Rural districts fuelled by

the high value of lands and availability of large area of

34

Government lands like gomal, gunduthope, tank-beds, parks

and civic amenities sites have led to their extensive

encroachments.

42. The JLC report observes that Bangalore Urban District

contains a large extent of erstwhile Inam lands which

became Government land after the abolition of Inams

(‘Inam lands’ were certain Government lands previously

bestowed to certain persons in return for their services to

the Government subject to the pleasure of the Government

and to the continued performance of such services. In the

decades following the 1950s, such inams were statutorily

abolished). However, erstwhile Inam lands which had

reverted to the Government such as community lands have

also been encroached upon.

43. Another observation made by the Task Force was the illegal

use of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes,

chiefly residential development. For instance, a company

called Epsilon Ventures Private Limited had knowingly

violated the various land use laws by proceeding to

construct expensive villas for wealthy customers without

regard to the land use laws in force. The Task Force had

addressed a letter on 29-Dec-2010 to the Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, requiring the

Deputy Commissioner to enquire as to whether the project

had been undertaken with the requisite conversion from

agricultural use to other uses in terms of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Reforms

Act, 1961. Thereafter, the Tahsildar undertook a personal

inspection and after according an opportunity to the

promoters to state their response, wrote on 05-Aug-2011 to

the Deputy Commissioner. The report of the Tahsildar

indicates that public land measuring 2 acres and 16.5

guntas had been encroached upon therein. The report

further states that structures have been constructed on an

35

approximate area of 12 acres and 4.14 guntas without the

requisite land/non-agricultural conversion. The Petitioners

submit that despite such report as aforesaid by the

Tahsildar, no action has been taken by the Respondents to

safeguard such public lands. The Petitioners most

respectfully submit that the aforesaid events amply

demonstrate a clear lack of administrative will in taking

prompt and effective action for the recovery of encroached

public land and that there are vested private interests which

have been successfully operating against public interest. A

copy of the said report dated 05-Aug-2011 is produced

herewith and marked as Annexure – K.

44. The Task Force, in its report, also makes certain findings

about the auction procedure followed by the Revenue

Department to dispose off public lands. Taking upon certain

concrete cases, the Task Force has stated that

advertisements about the auctions were not wide enough.

And that holders of General Powers of Attorney and the

same agent representing multiple bidders were unlawfully

permitted to participate in such auctions. Inevitably, such

transgressions have easily led to collusion, rigging and

cartelisation. For instance, the Report speaks of the case of

one bidder by the name of Sri Yousuff Shariff. The total

extent of lands auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner for

Bangalore Urban district between 2005 and 2009 and

thereafter confirmed by the Government is 643 acres. This

auction had fetched to the Government, a sum of Rs.540/-

Crores (Rupees Five Hundred and Forty Crores only). Of the

auctioned 643 acres, 283 acres have been confirmed in

favour of one person, Sri Yousuff Shariff making him the

single biggest beneficiary of such auctioned lands. The Task

Force Report also states that Sri Yousuff Shariff acted as the

same general power of attorney holder for multiple bidding

companies such as Umrah Brothers, Afnan Developers, Hill

36

Land Properties, MVR Securities and Top Notch

Infrastructure – a factor that all bidding processes

fundamentally prohibit. As stated in the Report, the Task

Force had brought this irregularity to the notice of the

Principal Secretary of Revenue Department and Chief

Secretary of the State of Karnataka vide letters dated 04-

Oct-2010 and 05-Oct-2010 but to no avail.

45. The Petitioners state that lack of administrative will for

taking swift and prompt action in respect of land grabbing is

further demonstrated by the following other acts described

in the Reports:

46. The Reports state that the Bangalore Development

Authority (referred to hereinafter as ‘BDA’, for short) does

not even maintain an updated Property Register for reasons

best known to it and is therefore, is no position to

accurately ascertain the total extent of encroachment of

lands within its jurisdiction. Still, of the BDA’s own estimate

of Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine (2,739)

acres under encroachment, it has been able to recover not

more than a meagre Twelve percent (12%) or Three

Hundred and Thirty Three (333) acres of land after the

formation of the Joint Legislature Committee in 2006. A

conservative market value estimate of such encroached

upon land has been estimated by the Task Force at a

staggering amount of Rupees Eleven thousand Crores

(Rs.11,000/- Crores). The Report records inter alia the

following inadequacies and failures of the BDA to act in

accordance with its statutory duties and employ its

statutorily given powers:

(i) BDA, like so many other departments and local bodies,

does not even maintain an updated Property Register.

In the absence of such a register, the BDA is often

37

clueless and unable to ascertain the complete extent

of the encroachment of its land;

(ii) BDA has often failed to insist upon the statutorily

mandated earmarking of 45% of layout area (15% for

parks, 10% for civic amenities site and 20% for roads).

As such, by disregarding its statutory obligations, the

BDA is neither taking a firm stand on relinquishment of

these sites by erring layout developers nor does it

insist prior to approving distribution of sites that the

private layouts should fence and handover public

purpose lands to the BDA;

(iii) The Reports further opine that the functioning of BDA

has been hampered by ineffective legal services

availed by it;

(iv) The Reports state that de-notification of acquired land

has also added to the woes of BDA. The Reports

record myriad instances of de-notification of civic

amenities sites. The Task Force Report indicates that

about Two thousand eight hundred and thirteen

(2,813) acres have been de-notified and that in almost

all cases of de-notification, the Government has not

observed the pertinent rules; and

(v) The Task Force Report also records the inefficiency of

the Revenue Department in auctioning reclaimed

Government land.

Forest Land.

47. The Task Force Report states that the total geographical

area of Karnataka State is 1,90,498 square kilometres. Of

this, 30,718 square kilometres are classified as forests. This

is equivalent to about Seventy Six (76) Lakh acres of forest

lands in the State. According to the details furnished by the

Forest Department, an area of one lakh sixty five thousand

seven hundred and ninety six (1,65,796) acres are under

38

encroachment. This shows a colossal failure on the part of

the Central and State Governments in the enforcement of

the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest Conservation Act,

1980, the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the significant

Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Forest case, WP

(C) No.202 of 1995. Further, the encroachment of more

than 60% of the Forest lands occurs in the ecologically

sensitive Western Ghats, one of the 18 ecological hotspots

in the world.

48. The Task Force Report has reported the helplessness

expressed by the concerned officials and their inability to

remove encroachments by influential persons. For example,

there is an encroachment of about 60 acres of forest land in

the border area between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in

Janagalkunte forest by a former Speaker of the Karnataka

Legislative Assembly. Despite an order dated 30-Mar-2007

passed by the Assistant Conservator for the removal of

encroachment, the matter could not proceed any further as

the said order was appealed before the Conservator.

Thereafter, the Conservator had ordered for joint

measurement of the encroachment by a team of officials

from the Forest and Revenue Departments vide his order

dated 16-Jul-2008. However, the joint inspection was

expectedly obstructed by persons eager to retain the

encroachment and the inspection team was not even

allowed to enter into the area. The Task Force then found

out that those very lands had already been surveyed in

detail by Forest surveyors and encroachment stood

established by clear maps that were available. In further

turn of events, the alleged encroacher had approached this

Hon’ble Court and the Task Force was of the bonafide

impression that the alleged encroacher did misrepresent

the relevant facts to this Hon’ble Court. Thereby, an Order

came to be passed by this Hon’ble Court on 16-Dec-2010

39

directing one more survey of the lands in question.

Accordingly, another exhaustive survey took place and

expectedly, confirmed the fact of encroachment. The matter

has since been held up in the Courts.

49. The Reports outline the following reasons for the extensive

encroachments and the inability of the forest department to

effectively deal with such encroachment:

(i) Although 7,846 forest offence cases have been booked

under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Forest Act’), Orders have been passed

only in 1,193 cases by the Assistant Conservators of

Forests despite considerable number of years lapsing

after the registration of such cases. Thereafter, most

such orders accomplish nothing as they are routinely

challenged before the Conservators of Forests;

(ii) The JLC Report records instances of encroachment in

Turahalli Minor forest, Bannerghatta National Park and

Bangalore Urban Forest Division. JLC Report further

recommends action impugning criminal negligence

against concerned Forest Department Officials.

50. The Petitioners further state that there are numerous

instances galore of encroachment by large landholders and

such encroachments are in respect of large areas. A Report

indicating encroachment of areas exceeding 10 acres in the

Chikmagalur forest division and the Bhadra Wildlife division

is produced herewith and marked as Annexure – L. A

perusal of this report would leave no manner of doubt that

with extensive information already available on all aspects

of encroachment in regard to such forest lands, the only

element that is lacking to remove such encroachments is an

ordinary effort by the Government officers.

40

51. The Petitioners further state that a large number of such

encroachments are made by persons in positions of power

in active connivance with law enforcers. A copy of a news

report indicating encroachment by former speaker of the

Karnataka Legislative Assembly Sri K.R.Ramesh Kumar is

produced herewith and marked as Annexure – M.

Lakes, Water Bodies and Storm Water Drains

52. The Task Force Report states that there are about 38000

lakes in Karnataka. In Bangalore Urban District alone, there

were about 600 lakes. As some lakes fell under two

adjoining survey numbers belonging to two different

villages in the revenue records, the number of lakes in

Bangalore Urban District has been shown as 937. The JLC

report states that in 1961, there were 262 water bodies in

Bangalore City area. These water bodies have become the

first casualty of illegal layout formation, rank trespass,

blatant encroachment and sanction by various departments

of the State and Central Government to put up construction.

The reasons for such encroachment are stated in the Report

as under:

(i) Lakes and tank beds have been encroached upon by

builders, shopkeepers, hoteliers, layout makers and

sites selling realtors, timber merchants, educational

institutions, instant overnight temple builders, political

personalities, industrialists and sometimes, even by

the BDA itself;

(ii) The Task Force Report further affirms that there are

about 840 kilometres of raja kaluves and storm water

drains which have been mostly encroached upon and

used as sewage channels instead. The JLC reports

state that the statutorily incorporated Karnataka

Pollution Control Board has wasted its powers to

initiate prosecution against those who pollute the tank

41

bed by encroachment. Matters were not helped by the

State Pollution Control Board conveniently shifting the

onus upon the Central Pollution Control Board in

certain cases;

(iii) The Lake Development Authority (herein after referred

to as ‘LDA’ for short) is a society registered under the

provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in

July 2002 with the objective of protecting, maintaining

and developing lakes in the State. The Reports state

that LDA is a high powered authority with the Chief

Secretary to Government as its Chairman while senior

officers of the State Government, the BDA and of

BBMP are its members. The Task Force Report states

that the LDA is not vested with sufficient powers to

initiate action for removal of encroachments and inter

alia for this reason, has not been successful either in

curbing encroachment or in recovering encroached

lands;

(iv) In 1985, an expert committee under the chairmanship

of late Sri N.Lakshman Rau, IAS (Retd.), was formed to

examine drawbacks and problems related to

preservation and restoration of tanks in the then

Bangalore Metropolitan Area and to make suitable

recommendations thereupon. Thereafter, the

Government of the day had accepted all of its

recommendations and had issued a Government Order

vide PWD 82 IMB 85 dated 11-Feb-1998. The said

Government Order had allocated the responsibility of

maintaining tanks/lakes as under:

(a) The 46 disused tanks should be handed over to

the Horticulture and Forest Department and

Ornamental Parks and Tree Parks should be

raised in these unused tank beds;

42

(b) The 81 Live Tanks should not be breached but

should be protected by foreshore planting and

they should be used for irrigation or for

recreation purposes to preserve environment;

(c) The 262 tanks in the Green Belt should be

protected and maintained just like the 81 Live

Tanks;

(d) The Forest Department has been handed over 90

tanks and lakes exclusively for preservation; 24

other lakes should be preserved jointly by the

Forest Department and Karnataka State Tourism

Development Corporation; Tourism Department

(12), BDA (6), BWSSB (4), Minor Irrigation (1) and

BBMP (1);

(e) In addition to Cubbon Park and Lal Bagh, six to

eight Regional Parks should be developed in

disused tank beds, if necessary by acquiring

additional adjoining lands;”

(v) The Reports assert that the aforesaid government

bodies to whom the tanks were allocated have

wantonly failed to protect those lakes and tank beds

from encroachment. The Task Force Report

significantly states that the Lakshman Rau Committee

recommendations were implemented in breach rather

than in observance. The Reports thereafter make

detailed recommendations for removal of

encroachments as well as for controlling pollution of

the lakes which have become sewage tanks posing

serious health hazards and thereby violating various

environmental laws including the provisions of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (herein after

referred to as ‘EP Act’ for short) and the related rules

43

and notifications. Here, one is bound to see a colossal

failure of the State and the Central Pollution Control

Board as well as of the Ministry of Environment and

Forest, Government of India in the enforcement of the

Environment and Forest laws of the land such as the

EP Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and

other related statutes and notifications.

Public, Religious and Charitable Institutions

53. The JLC Report found that a majority of Temple lands that

lie within the limits of Bangalore City and Bangalore Urban

District had been encroached. The JLC Report considered

about 1016 (One thousand and Sixteen) temples in

Bangalore Urban District out of which 68 (Sixty Eight) are

situated in important commercial areas within the city. In

many cases, very valuable temple lands were sold off on

the basis of forged documents. Competent authorities such

as the Muzrai Department and the Religious and

Endowment Department have not taken effective measures

to protect temple lands and property. The JLC Report also

states that if properties belonging to 68 different temples in

the Bangalore city alone were safeguarded and let out at

prevailing market prices, the income generated thereby

could take care of renovation and development expenses of

almost all such temples in the State that are under

Government care.

Collusion of Government Officials in Land Grabbing

54. The Reports record various instances of blatantly illegal

regularization of unauthorized construction on lands. In

some cases, proceedings before the Upalokayukta are seen

to be pending. The Reports also record instances of flagrant

breach of the KLR Act and the Rules and Regulations made

thereunder whilst regularising unauthorised cultivation. The

KLR Act prohibits the regularisation of unauthorised

44

cultivation of lands that are situated within 18 kilometres

from the outer BBMP limits. The Reports specifically record

numerous, but blatant violations in this regard. The Reports

observe that about 5,835 acres of land have been

regularized in the vicinity of Bangalore even with factual

knowledge that almost all of such lands are situated within

18 kilometres from the BBMP limits. The Task Force Report

states that the lands in respect of which regularization

applications have been either illegally allowed or are

pending in respect of nearly 20000 acres of land could be

valued at Rs.20,000 (Twenty Thousand) Crores.

55. The JLC Report notes that in a majority of cases,

encroachers were able to get khatas (record of rights in

respect of immovable property made in their names) from

the BBMP, BDA, City Municipal Councils (hereinafter referred

to as CMCs, for short), Town Municipal Councils (hereinafter

referred to as TMCs, for short), Gram Panchayats etc.

through submission of evidently false documents. The JLC

Report inter alia takes note of the fact that the procedures

prescribed for the issuance of Khatha, No Objection

Certificate, construction license and other similar

permissions are not followed scrupulously by the officers

concerned.

Government Litigation

56. The Reports also observe that the Revenue Department has

failed to effectively safeguard Government lands through

the medium of litigation. Clause 65-A of the Karnataka

Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 requires

the Department of Law to review pending Government

litigation, at least once in a month. In the Reports, it is

observed that despite the existence of such a review

mechanism, in Bangalore Urban District alone, more than

1000 (One thousand) cases before the City Civil Court and

45

this Hon’ble Court had witnessed the passage of ex parte

Orders against the BDA that could have been have avoided

through greater vigil on the part of those concerned. The

estimated loss caused to the Government on account of the

said ex-parte Orders alone is over Rs.2,000/- Crores. The JLC

Report observes that the Law Department should

computerize its records on the lines of computerisation of

records by this Hon’ble Court to increase its efficiency in

monitoring cases.

57. The JLC Report suggests that the present system of

selection of Government advocates could be vastly

improved upon and that it should be changed. It also

recommends the creation of a High Level Committee with

superintendence over the selection/termination of

Government advocates. The Reports set out elaborate

recommendations for reinvigorating the prosecution and

defence of litigations involving the Government.

City Survey

58. The Reports state that the Government is unable to

effectively protect Government land or Commons such as

Gomal, Gunduthope, Tankbeds etc., primarily because of a

failure to accurately survey or to promptly update entries

wherever already surveyed. The JLC Report urges the State

to conduct a city survey using recent advancements in

technology. The JLC Report makes a comparison between

the older methods of survey using tools such as cross staff,

chains and theodolite and states that the errors arising from

the older methods could be drastically cut down by using

advanced methods of survey that use Total Station

instrument. The JLC Report states that installation of

Geographical control points and Total Stations produces an

accurate survey to the extent of five (5) mm.

46

59. The Report further recommends that the system of

‘Registration of Titles’ established under the Torrens System

is preferable to ‘Registration of Deeds’, as the present

system of Registration is susceptible to easy exploitation by

encroachers. The crucial distinction between Registration of

Deeds and that of Registration of Titles is that in the former,

properties are transferred upon execution of deeds,

whereas in case of the latter, properties are transferred by

Registration of Title in a public registration (after verifying

the title by the claimants).

60. The Reports opine that an elaborate exercise of accurate

survey and printing of land and property records by modern

methods and a detailed City Survey Enquiry giving due

public notice will result in creation of property title

documents which would be certainly more dependable than

the documents that are issued or registered in the present.

The Reports observe that a complete survey for the entire

Bangalore Metropolitan Region will go a long way in

reducing encroachment of government lands.

De-notification of public land

61. The Task Force Report points out numerous irregularities in

the process of de-notification of public lands. In addition to

providing some glaring examples, the Task Force opines

that there is hardly any justification in deleting lands within

a given layout by adopting a “pick and choose” method as

is done in most cases.

62. The Petitioners state that there are numerous instances of

illegal de-notification of public lands in the name of

‘administrative discretion or expediency’ and therefore, it is

just, necessary and proper that this Hon’ble Court consider

issuing a workable set of guidelines and directions that

would be binding upon the Government in the event that it

chooses to de-notify lands that were previously acquired for

47

public purposes. The Petitioners further submit that

allocation of public lands to private persons, be they

individuals, companies, trusts, societies etc., is often not

accompanied by any objective satisfaction in the mind of

the Government that any public good is achieved by such

conveyance and in all such cases, there would be a violation

of the ancient principle that public lands always belong to

the ‘commons’ and should be preserved as such except in

the case of a compelling necessity. The Petitioners

respectfully submit that public lands cannot and should not

be diverted to merely benefit private persons without any

demonstrable good to the public and that certain public

lands and facilities, by their very nature, are best kept

accessible to the general public in the present and for

posterity.

The Karnataka (Land Grabbing) Prohibition Bill, 2007

63. Pursuant to the recommendations of the JLC, the Karnataka

Legislature had passed the Karnataka (Land Grabbing)

Prohibition Bill, 2007. Thereafter, the same was submitted

to the Union Home Ministry with a view to obtain the

President’s assent in July, 2007. However, four years later,

on 04-Mar-2011, the Union Home Ministry chose to return

the bill to the Government of Karnataka for a specific

inclusion of Wakf Board lands. The JLC Report states that in

the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh, the enforcement

of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,

1982, has successfully curbed large scale encroachment of

public lands inter alia due to the setting up of special courts

to exclusively deal with cases of encroachment of public

lands. The Reports, therefore, recommend that the State

should take immediate measures to carry out the necessary

amendments and to again table the Karnataka (Land

Grabbing) Prohibition Bill, 2007. Since the publication of the

Task Force Report in July 2011, the new Bill has been

48

passed in the Legislature but no steps have been taken to

obtain the assent of the President expeditiously which does

lead a right thinking citizen to doubt whether there is any

administrative will at all to address the problem of

encroachment with the seriousness that it deserves.

64. The JLC Report inter alia recommends the preparation of a

Master Plan for the use of encroached lands after their

successful recovery keeping in mind the principles of

sustainable development, future growth, requirements of

infrastructure and the environment.

65. The Petitioners vide their letter dated 25-July-2012 had

requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to

take urgent action for effective implementation of the

Report dated 30-Jun-2011 issued by the Task Force for the

Recovery of Public Land and its Protection. When the

petitioners noticed that no response was forthcoming a

month later, they issued another reminder dated 27-Aug-

2012. However, as of today, the petitioners have not

received any response whatsoever from the Government

and it is their honest impression that the absence of any

response from the Chief Secretary simply demonstrates that

the Government does not at all intend to move any further

in recovering encroached upon lands than where it stood

while the Task Force came to be disbanded on 04-Jul-2011.

A copy of the letters dated 25-Jul-2012 and 27-Aug-2012

addressed by these petitioners to the Chief Secretary,

Government of Karnataka are produced herewith and

marked as Annexure - N and Annexure - O respectively.

66. From a perusal of various news reports, it appears that the

Task Force Report was submitted to the Government on or

before 04-Jul-2011, i.e., the date set for the submission of

the final report. However, it further appears that the Task

Force Report has not been accepted by the Government on

49

account of some alleged procedural irregularities. If not for

the fact that concerned citizens had eagerly sought for

copies of this Report and that multiple copies thereof came

to be printed and made available at the personal cost and

expense of the Chairman of the Task Force, it was more

than likely that the gigantic work that has been done by the

Task Force would never have come into public knowledge in

the manner that it has spread. The Task Force Report

spares none howsoever and goes on to record very specific

instances of encroachments, without fear or favour of any

person. Needless to say, the work undertaken by the

Chairman of this Task Force was of such nature that there

always was a dire threat against his life during the

performance of his duties. It was at such a personal cost

and a grave threat to his own life that one public servant

truly took the motto of the Government of Karnataka,

‘Government’s work is God’s work’ to his heart and has

prepared and entrusted a comprehensive Report to the

public. It is respectfully submitted that the implementation

of the JLC Reports and the Task Force Report which is of

paramount public importance, is being ignored by the

Government. Moreover, besides setting up the Task Force,

the Government has failed to take effective measures to

curb encroachment or to recover public lands. The efforts of

the State Government and its various instrumentalities have

at best been lackadaisical and consequently, the State has

failed to perform its constitutional and statutory duties.

67. These petitioners had, therefore, deemed it necessary to

approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and had filed a Writ

Petition in terms of Article 32 of the Constitution before the

Supreme Court under the circumstances as aforesaid. On

15-Feb-2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to

state in Writ Petition (Civil) No.67 of 2013 that the issues

raised therein were ‘indeed grave’ and to direct that:

50

“In case the petitioners move the Karnataka High

Court in a properly constituted petition, the High Court

shall examine the matter and pass appropriate Orders

on it without any undue delay”

A copy of the aforesaid Order dated 15-Feb-2013 passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.67 of 2013 is

produced herewith and marked as Annexure - P.

Court Fee

68. The Petitioners share the same cause of action. However,

the applicable Court Fee has been individually assessed and

a sum of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four hundred only) against 4

Petitioners has been duly tendered to this Hon’ble Court.

69. Therefore, the Petitioners submit that in order to address

the very issues that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has termed

as ‘grave’, these petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India on the following, amongst, other grounds:

Grounds

The grounds urged hereunder are without prejudice to one

another. The Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to

urge additional grounds at the time of hearing.

I. It is the duty of the executive, i.e., of the State Government

and its instrumentalities to strictly and scrupulously

implement the laws that have been enacted by our

Legislature. Such is our constitutional scheme of

governance. The alarming rate of encroachment of public

lands is largely due to the evident reluctance of the

executive Government to perform its statutory duties. It is

respectfully submitted that the State machinery which is

already equipped with numerous powers under various

statutes has wantonly failed to address the burgeoning

51

problem of land grabbing. The ‘Task Force Reports’

decisively state that such failure is not merely attributable

to apathy but to also active participation and connivance by

many public servants themselves. There are several legal

provisions in various statutory enactments that already

equip the State Government to combat the evil of

encroachment of public lands. Instances of legislations

addressing the problem of encroachment, as applicable to

the State of Karnataka are enumerated as under:

i) The BDA, despite being empowered by Section 33A of

the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, to

evict and prosecute encroachers and abettors has

failed to effectively employ such provisions against

encroachers;

ii) Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, provides ample

powers for eviction of unauthorised occupants.

However, the Respondents have failed to take strict

action pursuant thereto;

iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976

empowers the BBMP to take punitive action against

encroachers and the BBMP has failed to employ such

provisions effectively;

iv) The Forest Department despite being in a position to

initiate action against the encroachers and its abettors

under Section 3A read with Section 2 of the Forest

Conservation Act, 1980, has failed to invoke such

statutory powers;

v) Section 64A of the Forest Act provides for penalty for

unauthorisedly taking possession of land constituted

as reserved forest, district forest, village forest,

protected forest and any other land under the control

of the Forest Department;

52

vi) The Revenue Department has acted in disregard of

the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964 such as Section 94A which specifies instances

where regularisation should be considered and Section

94B which prescribes the conditions under which land

can be granted. Further, the Revenue department has

failed to prosecute land grabbers and their abettors

under aforesaid sections of KLR Act, 1964;

vii) The provisions of the Prevention of Dangerous

Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as

‘Goonda Act’ for short) provides for penal

consequence for unauthorized use or occupation of

land belonging to a Corporation and aiding and

abetting such occupation by any person;

viii) Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development

Authorities Act, 1987 provides for penal consequences

and prohibition of unauthorized occupation of land;

ix) Section 72 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993

provides against obstructions and encroachments

upon public streets and open sites;

x) Section 54 of the Hindu Religious Institutions and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 provides against

encroachment upon lands and buildings.

II. The Government of Karnataka has no administrative

discretion whatsoever not to comply with the aforesaid

statutes that have been passed either by the Parliament of

India or by the Legislature of Karnataka. None of the

aforesaid statutes offer any freedom to the Government of

Karnataka to ignore their mandate. As such, the question

that arises under the circumstances as are prevalent in the

State is whether the Government of Karnataka has

conducted itself in a reasonable manner in the matter of

addressing the evil of encroachment of public lands. No

53

reasonable person could, after perusing the various Reports

discussed in this petition, reach any satisfaction howsoever

that the conduct of the Government has been reasonable. It

has been anything but reasonable. It becomes the bounden

duty of this Hon’ble Court to intervene in cases such as this

where the conduct of the executive Government is squarely

opposed to the will of the Legislature.

III. The Respondents have arbitrarily disbanded the Task Force

which was set up for the protection of public lands from

encroachment. The Government had a clear duty to the

public to state the true reasons for the non-acceptance of

the Report of the Task Force. It is a fundamental principle of

administrative law that a Government should at all times,

conduct itself with utmost honesty with its citizens for

whose good alone, it is brought into existence in the first

place. The reasons denoted for disbanding the Task Force

were factually incorrect and the decision was taken in haste

and without due application of mind. The action of the

Respondent No.2 in singularly targeting and disbanding the

Task Force smacks of a malafide intention on the part of

Respondent No.2. It is most respectfully submitted that this

is indicative of the government’s rejection of public interest

of protecting public lands and forests. Such conduct is

nothing but a tacit support to the encroachers by

disbanding the Task Force that was simply discharging the

public duties that were entrusted to it.

IV. Too many pronouncements from our Courts already exist to

remove any and all doubt in the mind of the Government of

Karnataka that it cannot knowingly, intentionally and

deliberately refuse to act when it is officially informed by no

less than its own instrumentality that too many of our public

lands have been encroached upon. As such, the

Government of Karnataka should be held to be reluctant to

54

abide by the numerous statutes already in force under the

circumstances described above.

V. The Respondents have failed and neglected to take

immediate steps even after the publication of the JLC

Report. The Petitioners submit that the recommendations of

the Reports deserve to be accepted unless there exist a

cogent and sound basis to reject the same. Further, the

interest of the public cannot be protected merely by formal

acceptance of those reports unless the recommendations

therein are implemented within a fixed and short span of

time. It is apparent from a perusal of the Reports that

extensive research has already been conducted on the

ground and on the basis of findings at the ground level,

elaborate recommendations have been made within the

framework of existing laws. The JLC Report has clearly

brought out the rampant irregularities plaguing the state

with respect to public lands.

VI. Article 144 of the Constitution of India mandates that all

instrumentalities of the State should strive and endeavour

to abide by the Orders of the Supreme Court. The State

machinery has knowingly failed to comply with the multiple

directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India. It is

most respectfully submitted that not only has the State

failed in its duty of implementing the existing law, but the

State has further failed to comply with the directions issued

by no less than the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is most

respectfully submitted that the State machinery has failed

to check illegal encroachment and deforestation and has

thereby failed to take necessary remedial measures and

such failure has led to huge ecological imbalances. The

State is duty bound to prevent illegal encroachment and

deforestation to maintain the ecological balance of our

forest lands. It is submitted with utmost respects that the

55

State’s continued failure to comply with the directions

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly necessitates

intervention by this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioners

respectfully seek the setting up of a committee by this

Hon’ble Court to assist it in the task of monitoring the

compliance by the Government of binding directions issued

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of directions expected to

be issued by this Hon’ble Court.

VII. The Respondent No.2 is yet to effectively comply with the

Orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.1132 of 2011 i.e., Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab

and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 1123. It is most respectfully submitted

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an Order dated

28-Jan-2011 directing the States to take effective steps for

the protection of public lands from encroachment. It is

respectfully submitted that despite the aforesaid Order, the

Respondents have proceeded to disband the Task Force

which was set up for the very same purpose. It is most

respectfully submitted that the Task Force, through its wide

public notice had received during its functioning from

September 2009 to June 2011, petitions, personal

appearances, reference from Lokayuktha, telephone calls,

emails, newspaper reports and even anonymously, 1597

complaints of encroachments of public lands. Of these, 398

complaints were finally disposed off to the satisfaction of

the complainants through detailed enquiry by Deputy

Commissioners, Conservators of Forests or other district

level department heads. The remaining 1199 complaints of

encroachments were under different stages of enquiry when

the Task Force was disbanded at the direction of the then

Revenue Minister. It is learnt that such direction was

without any reference or concurrence of the cabinet

notwithstanding that the encroachments of public lands was

not confined merely to the Revenue lands and lands that

56

were the responsibility of several other departments and

ministries were also the subject of encroachment and an

unilateral decision by the Revenue department would have

been insufficient to cut short the functioning of the Task

Force whose work was to the benefit of several other

ministries as well. It is most respectfully submitted that of

the nearly 11 lakh acres of encroachments identified, only

47,309 acres of encroachments were removed by the

empowered officers of various departments. This removal

accounts for a mere 4.3% of recovery. At that stage itself,

the Government is seen to have developed unexplained

anxiety to disband the Task Force. The said action of the

Government to disband the Task Force at a time when the

Task Force was making steady progress is a square refusal

of the Government to not honour the aforesaid directions of

the Supreme Court. The disbandment of the Task Force,

under such circumstances therefore amounts to the

Government refusing to comply with the mandate of the

Supreme Court Order dated 28-Jan-2011. Under such

circumstances, the Government has necessarily invited the

intervention of this Hon’ble Court to remedy its breach.

VIII. The increased rate of deforestation which is taking place

due to rapid encroachment of forest lands is often

irreversible. Rare flora and fauna are thereby endangered

and what is already being lost may never be recreated no

matter what money is spent or what human effort is put to

the task in the future. Conservationists have stated that by

reason of such encroachments of forest lands, extinction of

animal and plant species is proceeding on an alarming

scale. Such rate of extinction over a short period of time is

incompatibly greater than the corresponding extinction over

the course of millions of years. Environmental degradation

due to avoidable neglect by the Government has always

brought about the intervention of our Courts and the need

57

for immediate intervention in these circumstances is greatly

warranted as the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution of India involves the right to the

protection of one’s forest environment free from incursion

prohibited under the laws in force.

IX. The State’s reluctance to prevent encroachment of public

lands is a violation of the principle of ‘Public Trust’. Public

lands are a shared heritage of humankind and has to be

preserved for posterity. It is submitted that it is now a

recognized principle that human beings owe a duty not only

to their compatriots but also to the future generation to

preserve and protect common heritage. This very principle

has found acceptance in international law and is mentioned

in the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas

(UNCLOS) and the UNESCO Declaration on the

Responsibilities of the Present Generations towards Future

Generations dated 12-Nov-1997. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa and Ors., AIR 2006

SC 2038 has observed that “The public trust is more than

an affirmation of State’s power to use public property for

public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State

to protect the people’s common heritage”. Further, in the

case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the public trust

doctrine and held as follows:

“Our legal system – based on English common law –

includes the public trust doctrine as part of its

jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural

resources which are by nature meant for public use

and enjoyment. The State as a trustee is under a legal

duty to protect the natural resources. These resources

meant for public use cannot be converted into private

58

ownership. Thus the public trust doctrine is a part of

the law of the land.”

X. The Petitioners, therefore, respectfully submit that the State

is bound to retain control of and utilize public resources for

public good. Implicit therein is a duty to vigorously

safeguard all public lands from encroachment and where

the fact of encroachment is brought to the notice of the

Government, then to act forthwith to remove such

encroachment.

XI. By allowing illegal usurpers to encroach public lands, the

State is in fact, an abettor to gross violation of the rule of

law and the right to the environment and forest wealth

enshrined under our Constitution. It is respectfully

submitted that public lands earmarked for parks,

playgrounds, lakes/lake developments, schools have all

been blatantly encroached and unless the same is restored

back to the communities, the rights of our communities

would suffer in very real terms.

XII. The Task Force report indicates numerous illegalities in de-

notification of public lands. It is most respectfully submitted

that once a private land is notified for acquisition for a

public purpose in accordance with law, such land ought to

be treated as public land for all purposes and de-notification

ought to be allowed only in accordance with law and under

exceptional circumstances. The concept of public purpose

indicates that such land has to be put to such uses that

make the land and any structures thereon accessible to and

for the benefit of the public at large. It is respectfully

submitted that many instances of de-notification of public

lands are plainly improper, illegal and even mala fide

alienation of public lands to favour private interests. Such

selective de-notification of acquired public lands is clearly

discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the

59

Constitution of India. It is therefore, respectfully submitted

that it is just, necessary and proper that this Hon’ble Court

lay down detailed guidelines and directions in the matter of

de-notification of public lands so as to curb the possibility of

illegal, mala fide, unreasonable and discriminatory

deletions/de-notifications and to consider issuance of

binding directions to the executive Government in that

regard.

XIII. The rampant encroachment of public lands has necessitated

the creation of a Court monitored mechanism to ensure

strict implementation of existing laws. It is respectfully

submitted that our executive Government has largely failed

in discharging its constitutional and statutory duties in the

matter of curbing encroachment of public lands. Further, as

noticed in the Reports, a large number of encroachments

are caused with the knowledge of, if not the connivance of,

the State administration and such illegal co-operation are

procured at the instance and behest of influential persons. It

is respectfully submitted that the nexus of powerful persons

and perhaps, officials makes the task of implementation of

land recovery simply impossible except in the hands of iron-

willed men within the Government. Such peculiar

circumstances have necessitated the intervention by this

Hon’ble Court and the need for the creation of a continuous

monitoring by this Hon’ble Court.

XIV. The duty of the executive Government is to uphold the rule

of law. It is therefore necessary to proscribe and to

prosecute public servants whenever it comes to the

knowledge of the Government that the acts of such public

servants were deliberately and intentionally done to

knowingly facilitate encroachment by private persons. The

officers of the Government such as Deputy Commissioners,

Heads of Department and Chief Executive Officers have, as

shown in the Reports, failed to perform their statutory

60

duties. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners

respectfully submit that this Hon’ble Court consider the

issue of a direction to the Government not to spare erring

officials with a view to ensure that their departments

perform their statutory duties scrupulously to protect and

recover encroached lands.

XV. As stressed upon in the earlier paragraphs, the directions of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been knowingly flouted by

the Government of Karnataka. To ensure that the Orders of

the Supreme Court are duly enforced, it is most respectfully

submitted that it has become just and necessary to

establish a Court appointed Monitoring Committee with a

specific mandate to ensure strict compliance of the orders

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Hon’ble Court.

XVI. As stated in the Reports, the absence of a comprehensive

survey has enabled the encroachers to illegally take

advantage and to encroach public lands. It is therefore,

necessary that this Hon’ble Court consider directing the

Government and its various agencies to carry out a survey

and to prepare a Master Plan for future public purposes. The

Reports have recommended that the Government should

initiate a city survey of Bangalore Metropolitan Area under

the Urban Property Ownership Records Project. In addition

to it, the utilisation of the services of the E-Governance

Department would greatly help in updating the property

registers and to therefore, aid the process of city survey. It

is submitted that such steps would be necessary to equip

the Government to more effectively check encroachment of

public lands.

XVII.Our legislature has already addressed the evil of

encroachment of public lands. Acting through the

Parliament of India and the Legislature of Karnataka, our

legislature has seen it fit to enact and pass various statutes

61

for the explicit purpose of preventing encroachment of

public lands. And, where public lands have already been

encroached, specific and definite powers have been

conferred upon our executive Government to act to remove

the encroachments and to punish the offenders or the

perpetrators. The language in which such powers have been

conferred to our executive Government does not admit of

any discretion not to act when it is informed about the fact

of encroachment contemplated in the statutes. Therefore, in

light of the constitutional scheme and arrangement that

have been adopted in our country, the legislature has

already done what it intended to do. The task then, of

administering the various statutes passed by the legislature

is squarely upon the executive Government. When the

language in which the powers to check encroachment has

been found not to admit of any discretion to the executive

Government to refuse to act when warranted, it becomes

the bounden and constitutional duty of the executive

Government to exercise the powers that already reside in it

for the purpose of removing encroachments. In the instant

case, it is not in doubt that the executive Government is

fully aware of the evil of encroachment of public lands.

What did it do then? It established a Special Task Force for

the express purpose of co-ordinating between various

Government departments to identify and to remove

encroachments of public lands. It is only after the said Task

Force went about its task in a faithful and honest manner

that the executive Government chose to disband the Task

Force altogether. The circumstances which led to the

disbandment of the Task Force have been explained in

great detail in this petition. Any reasonable person who

would be told about the circumstances that preceded the

disbandment of the Task Force would invariably reach the

conclusion that the Government was opposed to the

removal of encroachments and therefore, took the step of

62

disbandment. Had the Government been merely unhappy

with the functioning of the chairman of the Task Force, it

could have proceeded to replace the chairman with a

candidate whom the Government felt would act with greater

concern over the evil of encroachment. However, that did

not happen. Instead, the Government proceeded to disband

the Task Force altogether. In doing so, the Government has

unmistakably expressed its intention that it does not intend

to remove encroachments of public lands if doing so would

be inconvenient to those in positions of power. In a

hypothetical situation where the Government of the day

would candidly inform the judiciary that it does not intend to

address the evil of encroachment, the judiciary would then

be expected to explicitly inform the executive Government

that should it not want to carry out the will of the legislature

without any lawful excuse, it also loses its own legitimacy to

continue in office any further. When such is the scheme of

our constitutional arrangement, in the current

circumstances where the executive Government has most

clearly expressed its deliberate refusal, it has also put in a

clear invitation to this Hon’ble Court to deeply intervene in

the matter. In fact, the remedies of a writ precisely exist to

address such blatant and deliberate inaction of our

executive Government to enforce the will of our legislature.

Therefore, the case at hand is an extremely deserving case

of this Hon’ble Court’s intervention.

XVIII. Article 144 of the Constitution specifically directs all

Governments in the territory of India to act to enforce and

abide by the Orders of the Supreme Court of India. The

Orders of the Supreme Court referred to earlier in this

petition could not have been more specific, explicit or clear.

If the Government of Karnataka was unhappy or unwilling to

abide by the aforesaid Orders, it could have proceeded to

the Hon’ble Supreme Court and expressed its inability or

63

reluctance and could have sought an Order on terms that

would have been acceptable to it. The Government of

Karnataka did no such thing. It merely chose to ignore the

said Orders of the Supreme Court and in doing so, it has

necessarily invited an extensive intervention by this Hon’ble

Court.

XIX. As early as in 1598, on the bounds of administrative

discretion, Lord Coke had said that: “notwithstanding the

words of the commission give authority to the

commissioners to do according to their discretions, yet their

proceedings ought to be limited and bound into the rule of

reason and law. For discretion is a science or understanding

to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and

right, between shadows and substances, between equity

and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do

according to their wills and private affections – Rooke’s case

(1598) 5 Co. Rep 99b. Four hundred years later, there is

simply no room to doubt whether there is any discretion

available to our executive Government to deliberately,

knowingly and intentionally refuse to act when it is provided

with specific, definite and actual information that certain

Government lands have been encroached upon by private

persons through clandestine, illegal, manipulative, corrupt

or fraudulent means. There is and there can be none.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

I. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the

instant Writ Petition have been narrated in the aforesaid

paragraphs and the same may be considered as also

forming part of the reasons stated in support of the prayer

for interim relief.

64

II. It is plainly evident that the Respondents are not merely

disinterested in removing encroachments of public lands

but appear to be also interested in protecting

encroachments by those in positions of power or influence.

The same is evident from the fact that the Government of

Karnataka has proceeded to disband the Task Force under

the special circumstances narrated in the aforesaid

paragraphs.

III. There have been numerous instances of theft or destruction

of departmental files stored in the offices of the

Government of Karnataka whenever illegalities therein were

expected to be laid before a judicial forum. Under such

circumstances, it has further become necessary to seek the

restoration of the Task Force for Recovery of Public Land

And its Protection to similarly safeguard the records

pertaining to public land encroachments.

IV. The petitioners are mindful of the law that any Government

that establishes a committee would also possess the

requisite authority to disband the same at its discretion.

However, the nature of the task assigned to the aforesaid

Task Force was largely to coordinate with the various

Government agencies to ensure that they simply did their

own bounden task of acting to remove identified

encroachments of public lands. In other words, the work of

the Task Force was primarily aimed at reminding and

commanding the various agencies of the Government to

take steps to remove identified encroachments of public

lands. The disbandment of the same, under the

circumstances narrated above, is grossly illegal and

unlawful and the petitioners expect to persuade this Hon’ble

Court to so hold in the course of the hearing of this petition.

However, until this Hon’ble Court reaches such satisfaction,

it is necessary, just and proper that the said Task Force is

restored so that the work of removal of encroachments

65

upon public lands is not halted and the departmental files

that pertain to encroachments of public lands are duly

safeguarded.

V. The Government could have no manner of grievance if only,

as an interim arrangement, the Task Force is restored by

this Hon’ble Court and is permitted to proceed with the task

that it had solemnly performed in the period between 19-

Sep-2009, the date on which it was established and 04-Jul-

2011, the date on which it was disbanded. It is noteworthy

that the Government itself did not appear to have perceived

any infraction on the part of the Task Force warranting its

sudden disbandment. That is, on 04-Jan-2011 when the

Government notified that the Task Force shall only continue

for the next six months, the Government certainly could not

have known of any infraction warranting its immediate

disbandment. Therefore, it cannot be the case of the

Government that the Task Force itself warranted any

immediate disbandment at any point of time during its

functioning. This aspect assumes significance in the context

of the prayer for interim relief sought for by these

petitioners. As such, if only the tenure of the Task Force

came to be extended by this Hon’ble Court as an interim

arrangement in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction

to intervene in matters of such grave importance to the

public, there could be no prejudice caused to the

Government or even if there could be any, the same would

merely be theoretical and would be far outweighed by the

public interest that would be served by the restoration of

the Task Force, as an interim arrangement, through the

Order sought by this Hon’ble Court.

VI. The Petitioners are fully likely to prevail on the merits of

their case and that the grant of an interim stay upon the

operation of the impugned notification disbanding the Task

Force would not adversely affect any interest of the State

66

Government as the removal of encroachments and the

working of a body to ensure such removal are the very

responsibilities of the Government and no manner of

prejudice would be caused to the Government by the

causing of such removal under circumstances where the

Government itself is unable to show that it has arranged for

a different body to accomplish the very task that was

performed by the Task Force. Further, the fact that the

communication by the petitioners to the Government has

gone completely unresponded does support the argument

of the petitioners that the Government itself is without any

plan or substitute to occupy the place of the disbanded Task

Force. Accordingly, should this Hon’ble Court allow the

continuation of the Task Force as an interim arrangement,

not even a theoretical grievance could be said to have been

occasioned to the Respondents.

VII. It is noteworthy that more than 40,000 (Forty Thousand)

acres of encroached public lands were restored back to the

Government during the short tenure of the Task Force and it

would be reasonable to state that the removal of such

extent of land from encroachments itself speaks to the

efficiency and dedication of the said Task Force to its official

objective.

PRAYER

In the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased

to:

(a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or a Writ of any other

nature or description or an Order or direction to set

aside the Government Order No.RD 897 LGB 2010

dated 04-Jan-2011 disbanding the Task Force with

effect from 04-Jul-2011 (produced as Annexure - F to

67

this petition) on the ground of the same being

arbitrary, illegal, unlawful or representing abuse of

executive discretion and to direct the Government to

ensure the continuation of a Specially Empowered

Task Force to carry out all the discontinued functions

and responsibilities of the disbanded Task Force under

the supervision and control of this Hon’ble Court;

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature

or description or an order or direction to the

Government of Karnataka, Respondent No.2 to recover

the public lands (as mentioned in the reports of the

Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its

Protection and Joint Legislature Committee of

Karnataka Legislature) that have been encroached

upon or illegally grabbed by private persons be they

individuals /institutions /trusts /societies/ non-

governmental organizations/charitable or commercial

enterprises or organisations of any other description

or nature and to report such recovery to this Hon’ble

Court;

(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature

or description or an Order or direction to the

Government of Karnataka to investigate and to

prosecute, where warranted, the government officers

or public servants who have knowingly, intentionally

and deliberately aided, conspired or connived with

private persons to facilitate encroachment of public

lands and to join such private persons in the

prosecution so initiated;

(d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature

or description or an Order or direction to the

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to faithfully implement the

recommendations made in the report dated 30-Jun-

2011 submitted by the Task Force for Recovery of

68

Public Land and its Protection and reports dated 14-

Feb-2007 and 26-Jun-2007 submitted by the Joint

Legislature Committee of the Karnataka Legislature

unless the Respondents could show a good cause to

the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court to not so act on

those recommendations;

(e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature

or description or Order or direction restraining the

Respondents from alienating public lands to private

persons unless the Respondents reach an objective

satisfaction that such alienation would promote public

good and that no such alienation be effected unless

the same is in accordance with the statutory laws,

regulations and binding directions that may be issued

by this Hon’ble Court;

(f) Pass such other orders or directions or to issue

continuing mandamus as may be deemed necessary

in the facts and circumstances of this case.

[REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

69

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, in view of the circumstances narrated above,

this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased, pending the

complete adjudication and determination of this Writ

Petition:

a) to issue an ex-parte interim stay upon the

Government Order No.RD 897 LGB 2010 dated 04-Jan-

2011 disbanding the Task Force with effect from 04-

Jul-2011 (produced as Annexure - F to this petition)

and to thereby restore the Task Force and to permit it

to function as if it was never disbanded;

b) to direct the Respondents, consequent to the issue of

prayer a) above, to provide the same support staff and

infrastructure as were provided to the Task Force

during the course of its earlier functioning;

c) pass any other Order or to issue any direction as may

be deemed expedient by this Hon’ble Court in the

circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS

SHALL EVER BE DUTY BOUND TO PRAY.

SRI K.V.DHANANJAYRoll No.KAR/659/2002

SRI GOPALA KRISHNARoll No.KAR/2216/2011

BangaloreDate: 28-Mar-2013 ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONERS