Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: generated by computer in Sadanandaswamy G N vs Jayamma on 18 April, 2024Matching Fragments
3. In respect of specific role played by the 1st accused by name Jayamma is that in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, which had totally 37 acres and 21 guntas of land which was branded as a Gomala land and in all the earlier RTCs, it was referred to as the Government Mufath Kaval land, she with the able assistance of her brother 2nd accused by Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 name Panchalingaiah hatched a criminal conspiracy and got entered her name in the computer generated RTC measuring 5 acres of land in the above said Sy.No.6 and in that regard she in hand-in-glove with accused Nos.3 to 9 who were the revenue and BDA officials created false documents. According to the IO, this lady was successful in getting compensation of Rs. 41,90,567/- and 5 sites measuring 12 x 18 mts. as compensation and sites in lieu of her ceding her land to the BDA.
Likewise, 4th accused by name Sri.Sadanandappa, who was the Revenue Officer, who got inserted the name of the 1 st accused in the computer generated RTC in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Lingadheeranahalli knowing fully well that, that extent of 1st accused land is not acquired by the BDA for formation of lay out. Coming to accused No.5 by name B.R.Krishnan, who was the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA was also instrumental in receiving the claim application of the 1st accused knowing fully well that the said extent of land was not acquired by the BDA as it was not included in the preliminary and final notifications saw to it that revenue records submitted by the 1st accused along with her application claiming her compensation, approved and granted compensation and compensatory sites in favor of the 1st accused.
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 who were the public servants attached to Bengaluru South Taluk, Revenue Office and when on 14-03-2006 1 st accused submitted her application before the 3 rd accused praying to enter her name in the computer generated RTC in respect of Sy.No. 6, 5 acres of land of Lingadheeranahalli, accused Nos.4 and 8 colluded with 3 rd accused accepted her application without verifying the documents and entered the name of the 1 st accused in computer generated RTC with a sole intention to help the 1 st accused, whereby have committed offence punishable under Sec.167 of IPC?
52. When we undertake chromatography of the prosecution allegations, it looks that as Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the 1st and 2nd accused have designed for themselves that they must not only claim compensation in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, but also making an attempt to claim 5 compensatory sites. It is also the say of PW. 3 that this 1 st accused having taken the role of a land grabber approaches the Bengaluru South Taluk Office first with her application that her name has to be entered in RTC in respect of above extent and Sy.No. of that village, then she must also to be issued with certified copy of the same. Secondly, according to the prosecution, once the 1st accused is comfortable with entering her name in computerized RTC, then she focused her attention of getting those computer Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 documents. So that, she can claim the computer generated copies from the said office in turn same can be presented to Land Acquisition Section of BDA, Bengaluru. So far as Bengaluru South Taluk Office is concerned, it is two purported legal acts of Jayamma, then venue has been shifted from Bengaluru South Taluk Office to BDA, Madhavanagar, Bengaluru.