Writ Petition No. 14987 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2075-DB WP No. 14987 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 14987 OF 2024 (KLGP) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under inasmuch as: 4.1 There is force & fairness in the submission of learned counsel for Petitioner that he would place certified copies of the sale deeds of the year 1962-63 and also of the Proceedings Sheet that vouch that the earlier Proceedings came to be dropped eventually by the very same Court. Ideally speaking, when Petitioner had moved the subject Application seeking dropping of proceedings, under the provisions of Section 9 of the 2011 Act he ought to have produced certified copies of all the supportive documents. At times, when that is not done, the Special Court in all reasonableness ought to have asked him to produce the certified copies, so that prima facie authenticity of records is demonstrated and lurking doubts if any diminish. 4.2 There is also force in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that initiation of Criminal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2075-DB WP No. 14987 of 2024 proceedings that too before a Special Court established under the special statute Act is a serious matter as observed by the Apex Court in PEPSI FOODS supra. Where proceedings are initiated and on the service of process, the Accused appears before the Court scrupulously and seeks discharge by moving an Application of the kind, the Trial Court cannot be too restrictive in its approach. One has to bear in mind that they are special proceedings brought before the Special Court. This reasonable approach is not reflected in the impugned order and that constitutes added error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court. 4.3 Merely because this Court is arguably exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227, one cannot argue that Court should not interfere even if there is error apparent on the face of the record to the disadvantage of the citizen. Writ Courts cannot send the aggrieved party empty handed when there is demonstrable injustice meted out to him. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2075-DB WP No. 14987 of 2024 contra submission would if countenanced would affect the credibility of institution. In the above circumstances, this Petition is favoured in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; the matter is eventually remitted back to the portals of Special Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law keeping open all contentions of the parties. We request the Special Court not to insist upon the personal presence of the Accused till after and subject to outcome of the remand now made, provided that, his counsel makes due representation. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
Arguments
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR S/O JASRAJ, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A KUMBALGODU VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 060. (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE THASILDAR …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 060. 3. SHRI HEMANTHRAJU S/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED MAJOR R/AT NO 32, ESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, RAMOHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 560 074. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1L R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, BANGALORE IN THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2075-DB WP No. 14987 of 2024 LGC(P) No-815/2019 PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Petitioner who figures as an Accused in the proceedings of the Special Court is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 04.01.2024 whereby his Application for dropping of the proceedings in LGC(P) No.815/2019 has been negatived. The said order purports to have been made under Section 9 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that when certain documents were available on record in the form of photostat copies, the Special Court could have indicated its mind to have certified copies of the same; that having not been done, relief has been denied to him; thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting its invalidation. He also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2075-DB WP No. 14987 of 2024 submits that initiation of criminal proceedings against a citizen cannot be done as a matter of course. In support of that, he presses into service Apex Court decision in PEPSI FOODS LTD & ANOTHER v. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & OTHERS1. 3. After service of notice, first Respondent – Tahsildar is represented by the learned HCGP; who vehemently resists the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. She adds that this Court has a limited supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227, the other provision i.e., Article 226 having been ornamentally employed in the Petition and therefore, it should loath to interfere. The second Respondent – Hemanhraju despite service of notice has chosen to remain unrepresented and that would not deter the Court from adjudging the cause brought before it, of course in accordance with law. 1 1998 SCC (CRI) 1400 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2075-DB WP No. 14987 of 2024 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties