SC ALLOWS MINISTER KUMARASWAMY TO CHALLENGE LAND EVICTION NOTICES IN KARNATAKA HC:

The Supreme Court today disposed of a plea filed by JD(S) MP H.D. Kumaraswamy, who is now a Union Minister, in connection with the eviction notices issued against him over allegations of illegally encroaching upon government land in Kethaganahalli village, located in Bidadi, Karnataka. The plea was filed in the context of an ongoing contempt petition before the Karnataka High Court.

The contempt proceedings were initiated by the High Court against state authorities for failing to comply with the Karnataka Lokayukta's earlier directive. The Lokayukta had ordered the state government to reclaim the encroached government land in Kethaganahalli village. However, despite the order, the authorities allegedly did not take effective action, prompting the High Court to commence contempt proceedings against them.

In response to the allegations, the Karnataka government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior officials to probe the matter. The SIT's preliminary findings concluded that the allegations of encroachment were prima facie true, indicating that portions of government land had been unlawfully occupied.

Kumaraswamy, however, has consistently denied the allegations of encroachment. He has claimed that the case is part of a political conspiracy orchestrated by the previous Congress-led government in the state to malign his reputation.

By disposing of Kumaraswamy's plea, the Supreme Court has effectively directed him to raise his grievances before the Karnataka High Court, allowing the state judiciary to adjudicate on the matter.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy, argued before the Supreme Court that his client was not a party to the ongoing contempt petition before the Karnataka High Court. Despite this, Kumaraswamy was still served with eviction notices by the state authorities in connection with the alleged illegal encroachment of government land in Kethaganahalli village, Bidadi.

Rohatgi contended that the issuance of eviction notices was unjust and procedurally flawed, as Kumaraswamy was not directly involved in the contempt proceedings. He further submitted that the former Karnataka Chief Minister now faced the risk of being forcibly evicted from properties that were allegedly encroached upon, without being granted an adequate opportunity to present his case. Rohatgi emphasized that his client had been unfairly implicated and reiterated Kumaraswamy's consistent denial of the encroachment allegations, attributing the case to political vendetta.

After hearing the submissions, a bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti disposed of Kumaraswamy's plea. The bench ruled that he was at liberty to approach the Karnataka High Court with his grievances regarding the eviction notices. The Supreme Court's order effectively allows Kumaraswamy to seek relief from the state judiciary and contest the eviction proceedings before the High Court.

"This contempt should end. Tomorrow the contempt will send me to jail even though I am not party," Rohatgi stated. He described the situation as "comedy of errors".

Justice Bhatti responded: "In contempt, you cannot be sent to jail."

Rohatgi added that the reason why he describes this as a "comedy of error" is because four-five years after the proceedings were initiated, suddenly one day he gets an eviction notice.

"Lokayukta has closed the proceedings and despite that the contempt is going on in which all this [happened]," Rohatgi added. Justice Bhatti suggested that he move the High Court in this regard since he has an interest related to its outcome. Rohatgi replied that he had already filed a writ petition before the High Court.

"See the series of order your are going to pass [high court] is going to touch my doorsteps," Justice Bhatti suggesting Rohatgi to move High Court.

He added: "We appreciate the predicament in which the petitioner is placed. At one stage, he was happy to be deleted out of contempt, another stage he is burdened because the eviction notice is issued. What at best we can observe, since the notice is issued in so-called pursuance of the complainant, we give liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court against the contempt case".

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the respondent, informed the Supreme Court that H.D. Kumaraswamy had already filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the eviction notices. He stated that the writ petition was still pending adjudication.

In response, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kumaraswamy, clarified that he had duly disclosed the existence of the writ petition during the proceedings. Rohatgi further argued that the eviction notices issued by the Tehsildar were procedurally improper, asserting that such notices could not be lawfully issued without first conducting a proper inquiry into the alleged encroachment.

Nevertheless, the Court dismissed his plea, observing: "On the basis of serious of orders passed in contempt proceedings in which the petitioner as on date is not a party issued notice of eviction of the petitioner on March 20, 2025. In the facts and circumstance, we permit the petitioner to bring to the notice of the contempt court that the petitioner has been deleted and that in pursuant to the orders passed in contempt proceedings, action has been taken against the petitioner for eviction from property from inquiry. Apart of the above, since the petitioner has challenged the order of eviction in the high court by means of a separate petition, petitioner is permitted to pursue the said remedy in accordance with law. The SLP stands disposed of."