Karnataka High Court
B V Ramachandra vs Government Of Karnataka on 23 December, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020
1 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 &
W.P. No.10469/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.12499 OF 2020 (GM-RES) C/W
CRL.P. NO.6273/2020 & W.P. NO.10469/2020 (GM-RES)
IN W.P. NO.12499/2020
BETWEEN:
B V RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE VEERAKEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT K KRISHNASAGARA VILLAGE,
SULIKERE POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560060.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHNANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BMTF, BBMP.
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560002.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BMTF POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020
2 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 &
W.P. No.10469/2020
4. RAVI KUMAR G B
S/O LATE BAPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.37, KEMPANNA NAGARA,
NEAR APMC, TIPTUR TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-574101.
5. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020.
6. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE SOUTH,
KENGERI ZONE,
BDA, CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR
CRIME NO.4/2020 DATED 9.7.2020 REGISTERED BY THE R-3 IN
RESPECT OF SY. NO.31, MEASURING 2 ACRE 02 GUNTAS OF
KRISHNASAGARA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 33
OF BDA ACT R/W 420, 423, 465, 467 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P. NO.6273/2020
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMAKKA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31,
KRISHNASAGAR, KOMAGATTA,
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020
3 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 &
W.P. No.10469/2020
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560032.
2. ANAJANKUMAR
S/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31,
KRISHNASAGAR, KOMAGATTA,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560032.
3. KIRAN KUMAR
S /O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31,
KRISHNASAGAR, KOMAGATTA,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560032.
4. PREMALATHA
D/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31,
KRISHNASAGAR, KOMAGATTA,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560032.
5. PUSHPALATHA
S /O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31,
KRISHNASAGAR, KOMAGATTA,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560032.
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY BMTF POLICE
BENGALURU
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020
4 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 &
W.P. No.10469/2020
REP BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560001
2. RAVIKUMAR G B
S/O LATE BAPPANNA
RESIDING AT NO.37,
KEMPAMMA NAGARA,
NEAR APMC, TIPTUR TOWN,
TUMKUR - 574101.
3. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560020.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN CR. NO.04/2020 OF BMTF POLICE, BENGALURU
ON THE FILE OF C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
33(A) OF BDA ACT AND SECTION 420, 423, 465, 467, 471 R/W
34 OF IPC.
IN W.P. NO.10469/2020
BETWEEN:
B N LAKSHMAIAH
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.24,
BHEEMANAKUPPE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560074.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020
5 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 &
W.P. No.10469/2020
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHNANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BMTF, BBMP.
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560002.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BMTF POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
4. RAVI KUMAR G B
S/O LATE BAPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.37, KEMPANNA NAGARA,
NEAR APMC, TIPTUR TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-574101.
5. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020.
6. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE SOUTH,
KENGERI ZONE,
BDA, CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020
6 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 &
W.P. No.10469/2020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR
CRIME NO.4/2020 DATED 9.7.2020 REGISTERED BY THE R-3 IN
RESPECT OF SY. NO.31, MEASURING 2 ACRE 02 GUNTAS OF
KRISHNASAGARA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 33
OF BDA ACT R/W 420, 423, 465, 467 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioners in all these three matters are before this Court seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.4/2020 dated 09.07.2020 registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force for the alleged offence under Section 33 of BDA Act r/w 420, 423, 465, 467, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The complaint is filed by Sri. Ravi Kumar G.B.-
respondent No.4 alleging that insofar as land covered in Sy. No.31 of K. Krishnasagara, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, title documents have been fabricated and forged by the alleged owners and certain others.
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020 7 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 & W.P. No.10469/2020
3. In the said complaint, it is alleged that despite the land having been acquired for the purpose of Kempegowda Layout, the owners got fabricated an endorsement to once again claim compensation, thereafter ceated created certain other documents and to sell the property to third parties. On the above complaint, the investigation is taken up.
4. The petitioners are before this Court contending that the land bearing Sy. No.31 measuring 7 Acres 36 Guntas an endorsement dated 30.09.2015 has been issued by the BDA stating that 2 Acres 2 Guntas thereof has not been acquired by the BDA. Thereafter, survey was carried out and subsequently, land was converted and sold to Sri. Sanka Srinivas and Sri.Manjunath, who have in turn formed sites and sold to 40 persons.
5. Sri. Chokkareddy, learned counsel who represents the petitioners submits that action taken is in W.P. No.12499 OF 2020 8 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 & W.P. No.10469/2020 accordance with law and prior sanction and approval of BDA inasmuch as endorsement has been issued and survey has been carried out as per the BDA Act, on which basis, the Deputy Commissioner granted conversion of land. In this background, he submits that there is no case made out against the petitioners and this Court ought to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings.
6. Per contra, Smt. Namitha Mahesh .B.G., learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the land in Survey No.31 measuring 02 Acres 02 guntas had already been sold prior to the acquisition made for the kempegowda residential layout. 1 acre 37 guntas has been acquired for formation of peripheral Ring Road, on 18.02.2010, the owners land has been acquired.
W.P. No.12499 OF 2020 9 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 & W.P. No.10469/2020
7. There was no further land, which was available for the said Hanumakka and or for the other petitioners to claim any title or right. That the owner of the land Smt. Hanumakka has also applied to BDA for the purpose of grant of sites in lieu of acquisition which is under consideration before the BDA. Later on a compromise decree was presented for the purpose of disbursal of compensation in the year 2012 and once again, a submission was made and it is only thereafter that Annexure-K is said to be issued on 30.09.2015. She states that Annexure-K, which is foundation for the entire case of the petitioner is fabricated. There are no such records found in the office of the BDA and as such, investigation is required to be conducted.
8. Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for BDA -
respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that Commissioner, BDA has already set up a special task force to make an enquiry. Further proceedings W.P. No.12499 OF 2020 10 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 & W.P. No.10469/2020 have been taken up in order to ascertain the veracity and truthfulness of Annexure-K as also survey sketch at Annexure-L to the petition.
9. Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP and Sri. K.Krishna would submit that if at all any officers of BDA are are involved in crime, they will also be made part of the proceedings in Crime No.4/2020 after investigation. In view of the above, she submits that this Court ought not to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. On the basis of the submissions, which have been made by Sri. Chokka Reddy and Namitha Mahesh, Sri. Raju C.N., learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in Criminal Petition No.6273/2020 would submit that Smt. Hanumakka, land owner has not received any compensation whatsoever from the BDA. Therefore, he submits that no acquisition has taken place. In view thereof, she sold the property W.P. No.12499 OF 2020 11 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 & W.P. No.10469/2020 to Sri. Sanka Srinivas and Manjunath, who are the absolute owners.
11. Heard Sri. Chokka Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in the writ petitions, Sri. Raju C.N., learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition, Smt. Namitha Mahesh .B.G., learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
12. From the submissions made by the counsel, it is clear that several facts are disputed in the above proceedings. This Court cannot exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by involving itself in ascertaining or giving a finding on factual disputes namely whether there was an acquisition, whether any compensation has been paid, whether sites were allotted, whether documents at Annexure-K and L have been forged i.e., endorsement and survey sketch have been forged or not cannot be W.P. No.12499 OF 2020 12 c/w CRL.P. No.6273/2020 & W.P. No.10469/2020 ascertained by this Court. All these would have to be ascertained during the investigation, it cannot at present be said that the allegations made against the petitioners are false.
13. Hence, the above petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM