Karnataka High Court
M/S Lanco Devihalli vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7107 OF 2014
Between:
M/s. Lanco Devihalli
Highways Private Limited,
No.EC-516, HRBR Layout,
2nd Block, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore -
Having its registered office at
Plot No.4, Software Units
Layout Hitec City, Madapur,
Hyderabad - 500 081.
And its Site office at
Toll Paza Admin Building,
Karekal Village, Kasaba Hobli,
National Highway - 75,
Nelamangala - 562 123.
Represented by its
Power of attorney Holder and
General Manager,
Sri. M.V. Sreedhar,
Son of M.Mallanna,
Aged about 42 years. ...Petitioner
(By Shri. L.M. Chidanandayya, Advocate)
2
And:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Sub Inspector of Police,
Magadi Police Station,
Ramanagaram - 571 511.
2. Deputy Director,
Department of Mines & Geology,
I Cross, North Block,
Ramanagaram - 571 511.
3. Amrutha.K.,
Aged about 30 years,
Having office at
Mines and Geology Department,
B.M. Road,
Ramanagara - 571 511. ...Respondents
(By Shri. K.R. Keshav Murthy, SPP-II for State)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR and complaint initiated
against the petitioner in Crime No.211/14 registered by
Sub - Inspector of Police, Rural P.S., Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District dated 18.08.2014 filed for the offence
P/U/S 4(1), 4(1)(a), Sec. 21 of MMDR Act r/w rule 3, 42, 43
and 44 of KMMC rules.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor. As already noticed the petitioner has made out a case for quashing of the proceedings. The facts are as follows.
2. The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The National Highways Authority of India had invited tenders for the expansion of a two carriage way to a four carriage way of the National highway from Nelamangala to Devanahalli on a build, operate and transfer basis. The National Highways Authority of India had entered into a Concession Agreement and the State Government also had entered into State Support Agreement with the petitioner for construction of the National Highway No.48 from Nelamangala to Devanahalli. In order to construct the highway it required building stone and therefore the petitioner sourced the raw material with the consent of the owners of the land bearing 4 Sy.Nos.38 and 40 measuring 6 acres situated at Honekaval village, Magadi taluk, Ramanagaram district and had applied to the second respondent, who is the competent authority under the provisions of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "KMMC Rules", for brevity) seeking grant of a quarry licence. The said application was sent to the Tahsildar and was granted for a period of five years by a notification dated 19.04.2008. The mandatory survey was carried out under Rule 17 of the KMMC Rules to determine and demarcate the area so leased. A spot inspection having been held and the land was measured with Global Positioning System (GPS) readings and fixed the boundaries and the lease was executed for a period of five years.
3. It transpires that he completed the construction of the Highway by the end of 2011 and quarrying operations were stopped. It is six years later that the petitioner was shocked to receive a notice of having 5 encroached the land other than that was leased to him by initiating proceedings at the instance of the second respondent alleging that he had committed an offence under Section 4(1)(a) and Section 21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rules 3, 42, 43 and 44 of the KMMC Rules. It is on the basis of these proceedings a case has been registered in Crime No.211/2014. Hence the petitioner is before this Court on three grounds namely, that the alleged encroachment by the petitioner by virtue of the quarrying licence granted to him, was on account of incorrect boundaries mentioned by the Geologist while handing over the land for quarrying to the petitioner. Secondly, the incident is of the year 2010 and the complaint has been lodged in the year 2014. Therefore, in terms of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the complaint would be barred by limitation, as the punishment prescribed does not exceed one year. Thirdly, the 6 complaint for an offence punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can be instituted only by a competent authority before the court and the court would take further steps thereon. In this case at the instance of the Upalokayuktha, the Deputy Director of Land Records having instituted the proceedings, is without jurisdiction.
4. The learned State Public Prosecutor who had sought time to verify the aspects, as urged by the petitioner, would confirm that there was indeed an error committed by the Geologist at the time of initially handing over the land to the petitioner and therefore the fault was not of the petitioner. Recording this submission, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl