Karnataka High Court
Sri M R Seetharam vs State By Special Public Prosecutor on 10 June, 2022
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION No.8470 OF 2020 (KLGP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.R. SEETHARAM
S/O LATE M.S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
D-4, I FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING
J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002
PRESENTLY AT:
GOKULA HOUSE GOKULA
M.S. RAMAIAH MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 086. ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. G KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. G.K. BHAVANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ATTACHED TO SPECIAL COURT FOR LAND
GRABBING PROHIBITION IN KARNATAKA
3RD FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. K.N. SHARATH BABU
S/O D.K. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO.53, GURUJI NIVAS
5TH MAIN ROAD, ADITHYANAGAR
J.P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 062.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
2
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
R2-SERVED-UNREPRESENTED;
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482
OF CRPC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS LGC (P)
NO.313/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR
KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION AND REJECT THE
COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed with a prayer inter alia to quash proceedings in LGC (P) No.313/2019 pending on the file of Special Court for Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition, Bengaluru.
2. Heard Shri G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned AGA for the State and Shri Murugesh V.Charati, learned advocate for respondent No.3.
3. Shri Krishna Murthy submitted that petitioner has formed a layout duly approved by the BDA1 in his 1 "Bangalore Development Authority " for short 3 32 Acres of land in Sy.No.88(P) and 97(P) of Kothanuru Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. In terms of the extant rules, petitioner was eligible to form 50% of land as residential sites. As per Resolution dated 10.08.2006, BDA increased the area for the residential use by 5%. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the plan and the same is pending consideration before the BDA. Second respondent has been allotted a CA site reserved for educational purpose within layout formed by the petitioner. However, he has constructed a temple in the said site. Residents in the locality started agitating against second respondent and he sought petitioner's intervention to resolve the dispute. Petitioner did not support his illegal acts. Therefore, second respondent filed complaints with several authorities right from the President of India. Pursuant to such complaint before the Lokayuktha, BDA issued a notice as per Annexure-P dated 08.02.2016. Petitioner has challenged the same in W.P.No.11793/2016. This Court, vide interim order 4 dated 02.03.2016, has stayed the said notice and the writ petition is pending. Second respondent is a party in the said writ petition.
4. On 22.03.2019, the second respondent has filed a complaint before the Land Grabbing Court contending that petitioner had grabbed public land and that the BDA was not taking any action. Land Grabbing Court has taken cognizance and issued process.
5. Shri Krishnamurthy further submitted that the matter is pending consideration before the BDA for modification of petitioner's layout plan as per its Resolution dated 10.08.2006. Petitioner has not done any act which falls within the definition of 'land grabbing' under Section 2(f) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 20112. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
2
"the Act" for short 5
6. Shri Jeevan Neeralgi, learned AGA and Shri Charati, learned advocate for respondent No.3 argued opposing the petition.
7. Shri Charati submitted that CA site was allotted for religious purposes. However, if this Court is considering this writ petition, liberty may be reserved to the BDA to take appropriate action as per law.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
9. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner is the owner of 32 acres of land. He has formed a layout. As per extant rules, he could used 50% of the land for residential purposes. Pursuant to the BDA's Resolution, he could use 55% of land. Accordingly, he has sought for modification of plan and the same is yet to be considered by the BDA. Based on the complaint of second respondent, BDA has issued a notice as per Annexure-P and the same has been stayed by this Court.
6
10. Definition of "land" under the Act reads as follows;
"2. (d) "Land" includes.-
(i) land belonging to the Government, Wakf or the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, a local authority, a statutory or non statutory body owned, controlled or managed by the Government;
(ii) rights in or over land, benefits to arise out of land, and buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth;"
11. As per Section 2(f), "land grabbing" means an activity of grabbing any land. Admittedly, land belongs to the petitioner and does not fall within the definition of the "land" under the Act. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Land Grabbing Court, at the instance of second respondent, are unsustainable in law. Though served, there is no representation on behalf of second respondent. Further, petitioner's application for modification of plan is still pending consideration before the BDA. At any rate, action of petitioner does not fall within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act in as much as, petitioner has not made 7 any attempt to illegally take possession of land belonging to the Government or other agencies.
12. In view of the above, the proceedings before the Land Grabbing Court are wholly untenable. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed; and
(ii) Proceedings in LGC (P) No.313/2019
pending on the file of Special Court for
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition, Bengaluru, are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AV