Karnataka High Court
S Shivashaktivelu vs Sri Ravikumar on 12 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38724
CRL.P No. 6250 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6250 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
S. SHIVASHAKTIVELU
S/O. P.SUBBAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS
NO.49, BAGALAPUTTURU,
KANGAYAM, TIRUPUR VILLAGE,
TAMIL NADU-638701.
ALSO AT AJAY CHOIR INDUSTRIES,
SHETTYHALLI VILLAGE,
KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI,
TIPTURU VILLAGE,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SRI. RAVIKUMAR
signed by S/O. BOPPANNA
SUMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Location: PATELRU COMPOUND,
HIGH GORAGONDANAHALLI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TIPTURU TALUKA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING
PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38724
CRL.P No. 6250 of 2017
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA LAND
GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU THEREBY
TAKING COGNIZANCE IN L.G.C.NO.6/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND
GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT, 2011, (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
THEREON.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition, Special Court at Bengaluru in LGC No.6/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011.
2. A private complaint was lodged by the respondent No.1 herein accusing the petitioner of trespassing and encroaching the Gomal Land bearing Sy.No.79 of Shettyhalli Village, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District. It was alleged that the petitioner had established an industrial unit in a portion of the land bearing Sy.No.133 which was part of Sy.No.79 of Shettyhalli Village. The Special Court had directed -3- NC: 2023:KHC:38724 CRL.P No. 6250 of 2017 the Tahsildar to submit a report about the allegations made in the private complaint. Accordingly, the Tahsildar submitted a report dated 27.01.2017. Later, prior to taking cognizance, the Tahsildar was again directed to furnish a detailed report about the industry established by the petitioner, supported with documents. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Tahsildar alongwith the related documents. Further, the Range Forest Officer, Tiptur had submitted a report. The Special Court directed the Tahsildar to file an affidavit regarding the retaining wall allegedly put up by the petitioner around the Government land, which was submitted by him. In terms of its order dated 30.06.2017, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and issued process to the petitioner who has challenged the prosecution launched against him in this petition.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in terms of an order passed by the Special Court dated 26.04.2017 i.e., prior to order taking cognizance, the Court had directed the Tahsildar of Tiptur Taluk to inspect the land and to ascertain whether the land in possession of the petitioner was part of a Gomal land. In -4- NC: 2023:KHC:38724 CRL.P No. 6250 of 2017 response to the said order, the Tahsildar in terms of his communication dated 07.06.2017, had after inspection reported that the total extent of land in Sy.No.79 of Shettyhalli village, Tiptur Taluk was 32.06 acres which was classified as Government Gomal Land in the revenue records. He also noticed that in Sy.No.79 of Shettyhalli Village, Tiptur Taluk, out of 32.06 acres, 15 acres was granted to five persons. The land granted to one Smt. Timmamma was surveyed and bifurcated and reassigned Sy.No.133, measuring 4 acres 4 guntas and therefore, he reported that the grant of land and bifurcation of Sy.No.133 was not mentioned in the revenue records and therefore, what remained after excluding the land granted was, only 17 acres 6 guntas. He also reported that the property in possession of the petitioner was not belonging to the State Government and certainly not a Gomala land. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that amendment of Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (Karnataka Act 38 of 2014), in clause (d), for sub-clause (i) was substituted by an Act No. 30, 2002, by which, the lands lying within 18 kms. from the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, 10 kms. within the limits of the City under the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:38724 CRL.P No. 6250 of 2017 provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations, Act, 1976 and the land falling within limits of 5 kms. of a City Municipal Council and 3 kms from the limits of Town Municipal Council and Town Panchyat, shall be excluded from the application of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and that all proceedings which were not covered by the above, would stand abated. He submitted that since the provision is now substituted, it should be deemed that the provision was in force from the date of the Act coming into force.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further invited the attention of the Court to an endorsement dated 04.03.2023 issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Tiptur Taluk, which indicates that the land bearing Sy.No.79 of Shettyhalli village, Tiptur taluk is situate 13 kms. away from the Head Quarters of Tiptur and 64 kms. away from the district head quarters and 9 kms. away from the City Municipal Corporation and since the Town Municipal Council is not constituted, it was not able to mention whether it lay within 03 kms. from the limits of a Town Municipal Corporation. Learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is -6- NC: 2023:KHC:38724 CRL.P No. 6250 of 2017 liable to be halted, since the Tahsildar has reported that the land in possession of the petitioner is not part of the Government land.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent No.2 submitted that in view of the report filed by the Tahsildar, proceedings against the petitioner could not have been initiated and cognizance of the case could not have been taken.
6. A perusal of the order taking cognizance indicates that the Special Court took cognizance of the offence, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar on 27.01.2017. Though the Tahsildar had submitted another report dated 07.06.2017, stating therein that there was no endorsement, yet the Special Court, suspected the bonafides of the said report and had taken cognizance.
7. The Special Court could not have suspected the bonafides of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, more particularly, when he indicated in his report that 15 acres of land in Sy.No.79 of Shettyhalli village, Tiptur Taluk was granted to five persons, which were not recorded in the revenue records -7- NC: 2023:KHC:38724 CRL.P No. 6250 of 2017 and that what remained in the said survey number was 17.06 acres. If corresponding entries were not made in the revenue records, it was the duty of the Tahsildar to take steps under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to enter the names of the beneficiaries who were allotted the land in Sy.No.79 of Shettyhalli village, Tiptur Taluk. This cannot arm the respondent No.1 with a cause of action to prosecute the petitioner.
8. In that view of the matter, the instant prosecution of the petitioner has no legs to stand, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru in LGC No.6/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 qua petitioner is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18