Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kalavathi vs The Bengaluru Development Authority on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6184 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8786 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8790 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8982 OF 2023
IN CRL.P NO. 6184/2023
BETWEEN:
1. PRESTIGE ESTATES PRIVATE PROJECTS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PRESTIGE FALCON HOUSE,
NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
signed by
REKHA R MR. T. ARVIND PAI
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka ADDRESS AS PER THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT,
PRESTIGE RIDGE VIEW APARTMENT,
OUTER RING ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
2. HIGHLAND ENTERPRISES
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THE FALCON HOUSE, NO.1,
MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. T. ARVIND PAI.
3. IRFAN RAZACK
SON OF LATE MR. S. RAZACK,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
PRESTIGE FALCON HOUSE,
NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
AS PER IMPUGNED ORDER NO.21/22-3,
CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRIKARA P K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 020
AS PER IMPUGNED COMPLAINT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
2. SRI.V.S.BALASUBRAMANYAM
S/O SHESHA IYER,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
R/AT NO.13, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH MAIN,
CHAMRAJPETE,
BENGALURU - 560018.
(IMPLEADING APPLICANT)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE FOR BDA;
SMT.JAYANTHI.R, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2018, PASSED IN LGC
NO.1298/2018 BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING
PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, AT BNEGALURU (COURT HALL
NO.1) (CONTAINED WITHIN ANNEXUREE-B) AND ETC.,
IN CRL.P NO. 8786/2023
BETWEEN:
MR. K.L. SWAMY
S/O K LAKSHMANASA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/A NO.9, SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA)
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560020
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
AS PER IMPUGNED COMPLAINT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2018, PASSED IN
L.G.C NO.1298/2018 BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING
PROHIBITION SPL.COURT, AT BENGALURU (COURT HALL
NO.1) WHEREBY THE SPL.COURT HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE
OF THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT (CONTAINED WITHIN
ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.,
IN CRL.P NO. 8790/2023
BETWEEN:
REZWAN RAZACK
SON OF LATE MR. S. RAZACK,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
PRESTIGE FALCON TOWERS,
NO. 19, BRUNTON ROAD,
BENGALURU-560025
AS PER IMPUGNED ORDER
NO. 31, M.G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHRIKARA P K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560020
AS PER IMPUNGNED COMPLAINT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1) SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2018, PASSED
IN LGC NO.1298/2018 BY THE KARNATAKA LAND
GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, AT BENGALURU
(COURT HALL NO.1) (CONTAINED WITHIN ANNEXURE B)
AND ETC.,
IN CRL.P NO. 8982/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KALAVATHI
W/O V S BALASUBRAMANYAM
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
2. SRI V S BALASUBRAMANYAM
S/O SHESHA IYER
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
BOTH ARE PRESENTLY R/AT NO.13,
3RD FLOOR, 4TH MAIN,
CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU-560018
FORMERLY BOTH ARE R/AT NO.231/7,
12TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560027
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST,
GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. M/S HIGHLAND ENTERPRISES
THE FLACON HOUSE NO.1
MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
IRFAN RAZAK
3. PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECT PVT LTD
PRESTIGE RIDGE VIEW APARTMENT
OUTER RING ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560085
4. SRI K L SWAMY
S/O K LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
5. SRI K L RAMACHANDRA
S/O K LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
6. SRI K L SRIHARI
S/O K LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
R/AT NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
7. SRI K L A PADMANABHASA
S/O K LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, SHESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
8. MR IRFAN RAZACK
S/O LATE S RAZACK
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21/22-3, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT,
M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
9. MR REZWAN RAZACK
S/O LATE S RAZACK
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, MAGRATH ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DTD: 19.09.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 TO R9
ARE D/W)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN L.G.C(G) NO.1298/2018 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HONBLE KARNAKATA LAND GRABBING
PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU (CCH-1) IN
RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE A).
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
COMMON ORDER
In these petitions, petitioners have sought for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them in LGC (P)1298/2018 on the file of Karnataka land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, at Bengaluru.
2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.6184/2023 are arraigned as accused No.2, 1 and 9 respectively.
3. Petitioner in Crl.P.No.8786/2023 is arraigned as accused No.5.
4. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.8982/2023 are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4.
5. Similarly, petitioner in Crl.P.No.8790/2023 is arraigned as accused No.10.
6. Since these petitions are arising out of the same case and involve common discussion, they are clubbed together and disposed off by a common order.
-9- NC: 2025:KHC:22002 CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023 CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
8. In LGC(P)1298/2018, a complaint came to be filed by Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) against accused Nos.1 to 10, alleging that originally land in Sy.No.125 of Hosakerehalli and Sy.No.43 of Ittamadu village belong to accused No.3 Kalavati and accused No.4 V.S. Balasubramanyam. They obtained approval of development plan for group housing in the above properties from BDA vide Resolution dated 22.01.1999 and in accordance with the terms of sanction, certain portions of the schedule property were relinquished in favour of BDA for CA and parking/garden and for public purpose. To this effect, they executed Registered Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2000 to an extent of 10,053 Sq.mtrs. However, accused persons have illegally constructed the building, including the said extent of 10,053 Sq.mtrs. In spite of being notified, they have not produced any
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
documents to show that they have any right title or interest or said extent. Thereby the accused have willingly grabbed land to the extent of 10,053 Sq.mtrs belonging to BDA and committed the offence punishable under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Act.
9. Accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 are seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them contending that accused Nos.3 and 4 purchased land in Sy.No.43 of Ittamadu village, measuring 4 acres 20 guntas and Sy.No.125 of Hosakerehalli village, measuring 5 acres 9 guntas through Sale Deed dated 20.06.1980 ('Subject land' for short). On 23.12.1988, they entered into partnership with L.K. Trust and Constitute - Accused No.1 Partnership firm and contributed the subject lands to the assets of the partnership firm as their investment.
9.1 By virtue of such contribution, the subject lands were vested with the partnership firm and became a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
partnership property. However, without the consent or authority of the other partners, on 22.01.1999, accused Nos.3 and 4 obtained a plan sanction from the BDA and also executed Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2000 in respect of parks and CA sites in favour of BDA. However, the Plan sanction and Relinquishment Deed were not acted upon in any manner. Accused Nos.3 and 4 retired from the partnership firm on 22.05.2004 by receiving a total sum of ₹5.75 Crores towards full and final settlement of their claim. Accordingly they lost their ownership over the subject lands.
9.2 Accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to develop the subject land. Accused No.1 also executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 23.09.2005 in favour of accused No.2 to develop the project lands. On 18.05.2007, acting under the JDA , accused No.2 obtained plan sanction from the BBMP to put up apartment building on the subject lands. On
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
29.06.2011, construction is completed and partial
occupancy certificate is issued by BBMP.
10. Accused Nos.3 and 4 have filed O.S.No.4030/2009 for a declaration that the JDA is not binding on them and for mandatory injunction, directing accused No.1 its partners and accused No.2 to demolish the construction put up. On 30.07.2012 it was dismissed on the ground that they have lost right, title, interest and possession over the subject land. They have filed RFA.No.1495/2012 and it is pending. During 2014, accused Nos.3 and 4 also filed complaint with Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) against accused Nos.1 and 2 for alleged encroachment of portions of subject lands, relinquished under the purported Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2000 in Cr.No.66/2014. However, after conducting detailed investigation, on 25.08.2014, 'B' report was filed on the ground that accused Nos.3 and 4 have
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
filed a false complaint despite having lost their right title and interest over the subject lands.
11. In fact on 01.10.2014, Commissioner BBMP has written a letter to the Additional Director General, BMTF, directing action to be taken against accused Nos.3 and 4 for having obtained plan approval for the subject lands without title and by suppression of facts. In fact on 05.06.2015, W.P.Nos.6450-6451/2013 (BDA) filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and also BDA for a direction that the parks and CA sites relinquished under the purported Relinquishment Deed to be secured by BDA came to be dismissed by holding that they have no right in the subject lands.
12. On 14.09.2016, BDA issued notice to accused No.1 to prove its right over the subject lands, on the basis of complaint filed by accused Nos.3 and 4. On 16.09.2016, accused No.1 submitted detailed reply appraising all the facts. Once again on 27.09.2016, Commissioner BDA
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
issued notice to accused No.1 to produce relevant
documents to prove its ownership over the subject lands. Once again on 29.09.2016, accused No.1 has submitted response along with copies of the documents. On 20.04.2017, occupation certificate is issued by BBMP in respect of the subject lands.
13. However, on 04.07.2017, once again BDA issued third notice to accused No.1 to produce relevant documents and approval in relation to the subject lands based on the complaint filed by accused Nos.3 and 4. On 15.07.2017, accused No.1 submitted response, drawing its attention to the all the notices, responses as well as the previous litigations between the parties. However, suppressing all the above facts, on 02.08.2018, a complaint under Section 9 of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011('Act' for short) came to be issued against accused Nos.1 and 2 in LGC(P)No.1298/2018 before the Special Court. On 12.09.2018, the Special Court
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
without proper application of mind passed an order taking cognizance against accused Nos.1 and 2 and issued notice. On 17.12.2018 accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively, filed W.P.No.56542-56539/2018 challenging the constitutionality of the Act and order taking cognizance in LGC(P)No.1298/2018. They were clubbed with W.P.No.47747/2017 and others. On 19.01.2021, W.P.No.47747/2017 and connected matters were disposed of upholding the Act and a direction was issued to the Special Court to individually examine the claims of accused persons for dismissing or dropping of proceedings, if necessary applications are made that effect.
14. On 10.03.2021, accused Nos.1, 2 and 9 filed application under Section 9(5) of the Act for dismissing/dropping the proceedings in LGC(P)No.1298/2018. On 22.04.2022 statement of objections were filed by the complainant. In the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
meanwhile, the Special Court secured presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and also arraigned accused Nos.3 to 10.
15. Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 10 have challenged their prosecution contending that BDA has suppressed all the earlier proceedings, findings given by the trial Court as well as in various petitions, wherein the contention of accused Nos.3 and 4 were not accepted and it is held that they have lost their ownership and possession over the said properties and relinquished their right, title and possession. In fact in Cr.No.66/2014, already 'B' report is filed. In the letter dated 01.10.2014, addressed to the Additional Director General of Police, BMTF, request is made to take action against accused Nos.3 and 4 for misleading the BDA. The Special Court without any application of mind has proceeded against these accused. In the light of the same, the proceedings against these accused are liable to be quashed.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
16. So far as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, who are the erstwhile owners of the subject lands, they have reiterated all the facts, except those facts wherein they have entered into partnership with L.K.Trust and accused No.1 partnership firm and contributing the subject lands as their contributions to the said partnership and the fact that on 22.05.2004, they retired from the partnership by receiving ₹5.75 Crores and further development of accused Nos.1 and 2 entering into JDA and putting up construction of apartment buildings, etc. They have further contended that they have not committed the offence under the provisions of the Act and sought for quashing the same.
17. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent-BDA would submit that the allegations made against the accused are required to be established at the trial. The petitioners are at liberty to prove their defence.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
The disputed facts cannot be decided in petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C and pray to dismiss the petitions.
18. Heard arguments and perused the record.
19. The fact that accused Nos.3 and 4 purchased the subject lands and acquired ownership over the same is not in dispute. It appears to prevent acquisition of the same, they entered into an agreement with one V.S.Nataraj by representing that the said Nataraj is going to construct a charitable hospital. However, after the said lands were saved from acquisition, accused Nos.3 and 4 have entered into a partnership with L.K Trust and accused No.1 and contributed the subject lands as their contribution towards the partnership. Though before coming out of the partnership, accused Nos.3 and 4 have secured plan sanction from BDA for formation of a layout for group houses and also executed Relinquishment Deed in favour of BDA for the CA sites and parks, admittedly, they have not
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
obtained any consent from the other partners. They have also not disclosed their partnership with L.K Trust and accused No.1. Admittedly, they have not acted upon the plan sanction. In the meanwhile, on 22.05.2004, accused Nos.3 and 4 have retired from the partnership by receiving a total sum of ₹5.75 Crores. On the other hand, accused Nos.1, 2 and 9 after securing necessary sanction and approval of the plan constructed apartment buildings in the subject lands.
20. The suit filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and its partners for declaration and mandatory injunction came to be dismissed by the Civil Court, by holding that the they have lost their right, title, possession over the subject lands. They have challenged the same in RFA.1495/2012 and it is pending. Not being satisfied with the same, accused Nos.3 and 4 have also approached BMTF, with a complaint in Cr.No.66/2014. After conducting detailed investigation, 'B' report is filed and it is
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
not challenged by accused Nos.3 and 4. In fact, the commissioner of BDA in its letter dated 01.10.2014 has enumerated in detail all the facts and by noting that accused Nos.3 and 4 have tried to mislead, it has requested the BMTF to take action against them.
21. In the meanwhile, accused Nos.3 and 4 have also approached the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6450-6451/2013 as a public interest litigation. While dismissing the same, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that it is not a public interest litigation, but on the other hand, a private litigation trying to be given a colour of public litigation. Though in W.P.No.47747/2017 dated 19.01.2021, this court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, it directed the Special Court to individually examine the claim of the petitioners. In fact, the letter dated 01.10.2014, addressed by the BDA to Additional Director General of Police, BMTF clearly implicate that accused Nos.3 and 4 have misled the BDA in securing plan
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
sanction and executing the Relinquishment Deed, even though they were not having ownership over the subject properties and requested necessary action against them.
22. In the light of the same, the allegations by respondent against accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 is not tenable. Despite losing the title in favour of the partnership firm and receiving their share of profits in the form of ₹5.75 Crores, it is accused Nos.3 and 4 who have played mischief and went on claiming that they are still owners. They have no explanation for having received ₹5.75 Crores while coming out of the partnership. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the petition against accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 is liable to be quashed.
23. It is pertinent to note that accused Nos.3 and 4 are also arraigned as accused under the provisions of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act. While Section 2(e) define the word 'Land Grabber', Section 2(f) defines the term 'Land Grabbing'. They read as follows:
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
"2(e) "land grabber" means a person or group of persons or a Society, who commits or has committed land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and also includes the successors in interest;
2(f) "land grabbing" means every activity of grabbing of any land without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and license basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorized structures; and the term "to grab land" shall be construed accordingly."
24. In the present case, accused Nos.3 and 4 no longer being owners of the subject land have mislead the respondent BDA in securing plan sanction and also
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002
CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023
CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
executing Relinquishment Deed in respect of parks, CA sites in favour of respondent BDA. By so doing, they have further mislead respondent BDA in filing complaint before the Special Court. However, they do not come under the definition of Land Grabber or Land Grabbing. Therefore, they cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of Karnataka Land Grabbing Act. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against them under the said provisions are liable to be quashed. However, the respondent BDA is at liberty to proceed against accused Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law for having mislead them.
25. In the result, petitioners succeed and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.6184/2023 filed by accused No.2, 1 and 9, Crl.P.No.8786/2023 filed by accused No.5, Crl.P.No.8982/2023 filed by accused Nos.3 and 4,
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22002 CRL.P No. 6184 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 8786 of 2023 CRL.P No. 8790 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER Crl.P.No.8790/2023 filed by accused No.10, under Section 482 Cr.P.C are hereby allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in LGC (P)1298/2018 on the file of Karnataka land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, at Bengaluru, is hereby quashed so far as these accused are concerned.
(ii) However, the respondent -BDA is at liberty to proceed against accused Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law for having mislead them, if so advised.
(iv) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63