MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Thursday, 17 July 2025

Supreme Court stays proceedings against Union minister Kumaraswamy in Karnataka land encroachment row

The NGO, Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, has alleged large-scale land encroachment in Kethaganahalli village, Bidadi, by Kumaraswamy and his family members

PTI Published 17.07.25, 04:10 PM
H.D. Kumaraswamy

H.D. Kumaraswamy PTI

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed an order making Union Minister and JDS leader H D Kumaraswamy a party to the ongoing contempt proceedings over the alleged large-scale land encroachment in a Karnataka village.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale took note of the plea of Kumaraswamy, the central heavy industries minister, against the Karnataka High Court's April 17 order and issued a notice to NGO "Samaj Parivartan Samudaya" being represented by lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

ADVERTISEMENT

The NGO has alleged large-scale land encroachment in Kethaganahalli village, Bidadi, by Kumaraswamy and his family members.

The top court noted that the contempt proceedings were pending before the high court for alleged disobedience of an order of January 14, 2020, passed by a division bench.

“The above order in the writ petition was passed by the high court on the basis of the statement by the additional advocate general wherein he stated that the state will comply with the order dated August 5, 2014, passed by the Karnataka Lokayukta within a period of three weeks," it said.

The order of the Lokayuta, the bench said, was detailed but interlocutory in nature and later, the Lokayukta finally closed the proceedings on March 3, 2021.

The top court recorded the submissions of senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for the leader, saying there cannot be contempt proceedings on an interim order of the Lokayukta when the case was closed later by the ombudsman itself.

”The second submission is, that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not a party to the contempt proceedings but even then, the actions were taken against them for eviction. Therefore, this court vide order dated May 28, 2025 disposed of the SLP preferred by the petitioner with liberty to bring to the notice of the high court that he has been deleted from the contempt proceedings,” it recorded.

Sundaram said an application was filed by Kumarwaswamy in the high court following the apex court direction, but he was made a party in the ongoing contempt proceedings instead.

“The submission is, he has not filed for impleadment but has brought it to the notice of the court as directed by this court. Issue notice," the bench ordered.

Any response the the leader's plea was directed to be filed within four weeks.

"In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 17 April 2025 will remain in abeyance," the top court added.

The bench, however, did not issue notices to other parties including the Karnataka government on the plea of the minister.

The present contempt proceedings arose from the NGO's plea, which refers to a 2011 Lokayukta interlocutory report flagging illegal occupation of government land.

The state government later constituted a special investigation team which reportedly found prima facie evidence supporting the allegations.

The high court, acting on a 2020 assurance from the then advocate general that the state would act upon the Lokayukta’s findings, closed the case.

Later, the Lokayukta also formally closed its own proceedings in 2021 due to jurisdictional limitations.

However, a contempt petition was later admitted by the high court against state authorities for allegedly failing to reclaim the encroached lands, as initially recommended.

During the course of the proceedings, eviction notices were issued to Kumaraswamy, even though he was not a party to the contempt case at the time.

Kumaraswamy moved the Supreme Court, which disposed of his plea on March 28, 2025, directing him to take the matter up with the high court.

He then filed an application clarifying that he should not be subjected to eviction since he had not been impleaded in the proceedings.

The high court subsequently added him as a respondent on April 17 which he has challenged in the top court.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT