Hindu religious land illegally encroached for Muslim graveyard in Karnataka
Jevargi, Karnataka, India 
28 January, 2026
Case Summary
On 29 January 2026, in the Kalaburagi district in Karnataka, Hindu religious land associated with Shri Nijasharana Ambigara Choudayya was illegally encroached by a Muslim man named Mohammed Haneef, who wished to convert it into a Muslim graveyard. The incident came to light when Mohammed Haneef attempted to remove the nameboard while seeking control over nearly four acres of land connected with the site. This alerted the members of the local Hindu community nearby. They raised objections and staged protests objecting to attempts to remove the signboard or alter the status of the land. Villagers stated that developments surrounding the removal of the nameboard and the land issue took place with the involvement of local police authorities, which created concern and tension among villagers. The issue intensified after official notices and communications linked to local authorities and the police circulated in the village regarding inquiries into the nameboard and the status of the land. Hindu residents stated that the nameboard had stood at the location for years and symbolised the religious and cultural connection of the land with Shri Nijasharana Ambigara Choudayya. They expressed concern that removing the board would weaken the Hindu religious identity associated with the land and facilitate encroachment. Residents further stated that this was not the first such instance in the village. Two years earlier, when 3.2 acres of land had been allotted for a Muslim graveyard, nearly seven acres came under occupation without any proper survey or demarcation. Villagers connected the present developments with that earlier episode and expressed concern over the repeated expansion of land without clear boundary verification. In the past, similar instances of illegal land encroachment were highlighted by Hindu and legal organisations such as the Legal Rights Protection Forum (LRPF). One such case emerged from Bidarahalli, where unlawful land occupation became a matter of concern for local Hindu residents. Despite such interventions, community members stated that many such issues did not receive sustained attention from mainstream media, which left affected Hindus struggling to have their concerns heard. Following these developments, villagers organised protests and demanded that the administration maintain the status quo until a proper inquiry into the land dispute took place. They also appealed to the wider Hindu community for support while urging the authorities to conduct a proper land survey and ensure clear demarcation of the land.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category for this case is "Attack on Hindu religious representations". The sub-category for this case is "Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land". In Hinduism, a temple is the abode of the Deity. The Deity in the Temple is consecrated, thereby making it a real, breathing entity. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the temple premises itself are sacred to Hindus since Hindus hold the faith that the entire Temple space is an amalgamation of the divine energy of the deity. Not only the Temple but the Temple premises in its entirety are considered sacred by Hindus. In several cases, the premises of the Temple and/or religious centre are illicitly taken over by institutions belonging to other faiths, like the Waqf board or the Church. Other times, the temple property, land or the property of religious centres are illicitly encroached upon by non-Hindu groups. Any illicit takeover or encroachment is a crime an initio; however, when non-Hindu groups illicitly take over or encroach on the sacred land of Hindus, it is an affront to the Hindu community and is therefore classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. This case was included under this category because the land in question was associated with Shri Nijasharana Ambigara Choudayya, a revered saint in the Lingayat tradition of Hinduism. Shri Nijasharana Ambigara Choudayya was remembered as a 12th-century devotee of Lord Shiva and a follower of the spiritual movement led by Basavanna. He was known for composing vachanas (devotional verses) and for spreading teachings centred on devotion, equality, and spiritual discipline. Because of this legacy, sites associated with him held religious significance for devotees and were treated as sacred spaces connected with the Hindu spiritual tradition. In Hindu belief, land dedicated to or associated with a revered saint, deity, or spiritual figure was not regarded as ordinary property. Such land formed part of the sacred religious landscape of the community and was seen as spiritually connected to the figure it commemorated. Markers such as nameboards, shrines, or memorial structures served to preserve the religious identity of the place and helped devotees recognise and maintain that connection. The continued presence of such markers reinforced the sanctity of the site and its importance to the local Hindu community. In this case, deliberate attempts were made to alter the identity of the land and remove markers that affirmed its Hindu religious association, giving the incident implications far beyond an ordinary property dispute. The removal of symbols connected to a revered Hindu saint weakened the recognised religious character of the site. When such land was repurposed for institutions that bore no connection to the saint or the beliefs associated with him, it interfered with the community’s ability to preserve and practise its religious heritage at that location. For devotees, this amounted to an encroachment upon a sacred space rather than a mere issue of land ownership. The broader context also indicated a recurring pattern in the same locality where land originally allocated for a specific purpose expanded beyond its designated limits without proper demarcation. When such developments repeatedly affected spaces connected with Hindu religious identity, they created a perception that sacred land was gradually being absorbed and its original religious character diminished. Since the incident affected land associated with a revered Hindu saint and formed part of this wider pattern, it was classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under the category of an attack on Hindu religious representations.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
