Supreme Court Allows Union Minister Kumaraswamy To Raise Grievances Against Land Eviction Notices Before Karnataka HC

The Supreme Court today disposed of a plea of JD(S) MP HD Kumaraswamy (now a Union Minister) over the eviction notices issued to him in regards to the allegations of illegal encroachment of government lands in Kethaganahalli village, Bidadi, in a contempt petition ongoing before the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the authorities, which failed to comply with the Lokayukta's order ordering that the illegally encroached lands in Kethaganahalli village should be reclaimed by the Government. The State had formed a special investigation team of senior officials and found the allegations of encroachment prima facie true. Kumaraswamy has denied the allegations of encroaching the said land and alleged a conspiracy initiated by the Congress Government. 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Kumaraswamy, submitted that he's not a party to the ongoing contempt petition before the High Court but still the eviction notices were issued to him and he risks being evicted from the properties illegally owned by him.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N Bhatti however allowed him to approach the Karnataka High Court with his grievances.

"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.."

For the Respondent, Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed that a writ petition has been filed by Kumaraswamy challenging the eviction notices which is pending.

Responding to this, Rohatgi informed that he duly disclosed the writ petition and added that the Tehsildar could not issue eviction notice before inquiry.

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."