Criminal Petition No. 12274 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12274 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVAKUMAR D S/O LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF K.R. PURAM BANGALORE 560 036 NOW WORKING AT SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE AT SARJAPURA BANGALORE 562 125 (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. 2.
Facts
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KADUGODI P.S SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE 560 001 THE TASILDHAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM BANGALORE 560 036 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of LALITHA SASTRY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 and in the case of S.RAMANNA V. STATE BY NELAMANGALA POLICE in Crl.P.No.4662 of 2008 disposed on 11-06-2009. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the position on the issue being covered by the aforesaid judgments. 5. The co-ordinate bench in the case of LALITHA SASTRI (supra) has held as follows: “…. …. …. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these cases is, they are in occupation of the disputed land in question in their own right. It is not a Government land. They have not encroached upon any portion of the Government land. In fact some of them are purchasers of such lands. They are put in possession by their vendors, on the basis of documents handed over to them at the time of purchase. They are not aware of the factual position and may be innocent also. In spite of the same these proceedings are initiated against them as if they have encroached the Government land which is made an offence now by amendment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by introducing Section 192A. Some of them contend if any survey had been conducted with any notice to them and if it was shown to them that the land which is in their occupation or any portion of it is a Government land, they would have surrendered the said land. However, without giving any such opportunity, without conducting any survey in their presence, on the basis of Mahazars conducted, on the basis of documents to which they are not parties, a complaint is lodged by the Tahsildar with the jurisdictional police who in turn has initiated criminal proceedings and charge sheets are filed. Therefore, they seek for quashing of the entire proceedings. 3. After notice the Government entered appearance and supported their action. After hearing the matter at length when it was suggested to the Government that an opportunity ought to have been given to these petitioners and persons who are similarly placed, who if they are convinced that they are in occupation of a Government land, without any intention of entering upon the said land or continued to occupy the said land, they may voluntarily give up such possession. Time was taken to consider whether a provision could be made to adjudicate these aspects before initiation of proceedings. Today a memo is filed on behalf of the Government enclosing a circular dated 8.9.2008. The said circular reads as under:- “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ” ¸ÀASÉå: Dgïr 674 J(cid:24)ïf© 2008 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.09.2008. ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ(cid:24)É «µÀAiÀÄ: MvÀÄÛªÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. ****** ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À MvÀÄÛªÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝUÉ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr vÀAzÀÄ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²PÉëUÀ¼ÀÄ JA§ ºÉƸÀ CzsÁåAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ(cid:24)ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj d«Ää£À°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Qæ«Ä£À(cid:24)ï - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀªÀjUÉ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ zÁR(cid:24)ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À®Ä MAzÀÄ CªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß (Opportunity) ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÀUÀArzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Qæ«Ä£À(cid:24)ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À(cid:24)ÁVzÉ:- 1. ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½zÀÄ §AzÀ vÀPÀët CAxÀ ªÀåQÛ / ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ(cid:24)É D ¸ÀPÁðj d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄwÛÃj JA§ §UÉÎ w½¹, CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR(cid:24)ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ °TvÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ vÀ®Ä¦¸À®Ä w½¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 2. ¤UÀ¢üvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀĪÀÅzÉà zÁR(cid:24)ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀzÉà EzÀÝ°è ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ PÁ(cid:24)ÁªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ MvÀÄÛªÀj ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ MvÀÄÛªÀj JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀħAzÀ°è ªÀĺÀdgï §gÉzÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ºÁdjzÀÝ UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ(cid:24)É PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀrAiÀÄ°è Qæ«Ä£À(cid:24)ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 3. MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr zÁR(cid:24)ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ°è D zÁR(cid:24)ÁwUÀ¼À £ÉÊdvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ªÀgÀuÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆ®APÀÄóµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹, zÁR(cid:24)ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ®Ä CxÀªÁ ¸Àȶֹ JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀħAzÀ°è MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀrAiÀÄ°è Qæ«Ä£À(cid:24)ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ zÁR°¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¸À»/- ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E(cid:24)ÁSÉ (¨sÀÆ.ªÀÄA). EªÀjUÉ, 1) J(cid:24)Áè ¥ÁæzÉòPÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ. 2) J(cid:24)Áè f(cid:24)Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ. 3) J(cid:24)Áè G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ.s 4) J(cid:24)Áè vÀºÀ²Ã(cid:24)ÁÝgÀgÀÄ. f(cid:24)Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ 5) ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥Àæw. it is clear 4. From the the aforesaid circular Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings are initiated under Section 192 A of the Act. In fact it stipulates a procedure under which a show cause notice is to be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their objections within 15 days. If no objections are received authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct a Mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In fact the said procedure contemplated by the Government satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice, an opportunity is given to these persons to realise whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution. That would meet the ends of justice. In that view of the matter, as the criminal prosecution is launched against all these petitioners without affording an opportunity to have their say and in the light of the circular which is passed by the Government, these proceedings cannot be sustained.” The co-ordinate Bench in the case of S.RAMANNA (supra) has held as follows: “…. …. …. for 3. Learned Counsel appearing the petitioner submits that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has to verify whether the documents produced are bogus documents or not, whether the vendor has clear title deed to the property, whether the transfer is by impersonating the real owner and whether the transfer is in accordance with law? There is no reference under the sale deed that there is transfer of non- agricultural land without conversion order nor there is any allegation that this authority has got anything to do with the conversion order or non-conversion. 4. Section 192-A refers to Clause (5) which deals with sale of an agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without getting such land converted or without getting approval of the competent authority. Section 192 (B) registered sale deed produced in this case, it shows that a small portion of agricultural land has been sold. No doubt, the vendor might be circumventing the provisions of Land Revenue Act by selling the land in piece meal. But that does not constitute an offence as far as the Sub- registrar is concerned. Along with the sale deed, the vendor has produced the certificate of the purchaser to show that the purchaser is an agriculturist and has also obtained necessary permission under the relevant law. If that is so, as far as this petitioner is concerned, there is no violation of Section 192(A) or 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The complaint dated 19.9.2008 by the Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and the First Information Report dated 15.10.2008 in Crime No.962/2008 on the file of the JMFC Nelamangala insofar as the petitioner is concerned are quashed.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 4. In the light of the issue standing covered by the aforesaid judgments passed by the co-ordinate Benches on all its fours, the present petition deserves to succeed. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
Arguments
(BY SMT. M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS IN L.G.C (S) NO.27/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPL.COURT, BENGALURU ORDER DATED 22.08.2023 IN TAKING OF COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE 4(3) AND 5 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT, AS PER DOCUMENT NO.1. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 in LGC (S) No.27/2023 on the file of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition (Special Court), Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 4(iii) (v) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short, ‘The KLGP Act’) is before this Court seeking quashing of the said proceedings and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was working as the Senior Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru at the relevant point in time. On 08.02.2023, the 2nd respondent – Tahasildar filed a complaint against the petitioner and four others for alleged offences under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Sections 447, 465, 468 and 471 IPC in pursuance of which an FIR in Crime No.28/2023 was registered against the petitioner and four others. Subsequently, on 13.02.2023, the Land Grabbing Court initiated suo-moto - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 proceedings against the petitioner and the aforesaid four persons for alleged offences under Sections 4(3) and 5 of the KLGP Act. 4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid complaint and FIR in W.P.No.3679/2023 before this Court, which allowed the said petition and quashed the proceedings vide order dated 05.06.2023 as hereunder: “Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the FIR dated 08-02-2023 and further proceedings in Crime No.28 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 192(A)(1), 192(A)(2)(3)(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Sections 447, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Satish K., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the co-
Decision
ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR dated 08-02-2023 and all further proceedings taken thereto in Crime No.28 of 2023, shall stand quashed qua the petitioner.” 5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent submitted a report dated 22.08.2023 to the Land Grabbing Court in relation to the impugned proceedings. However, the 2nd respondent did not intimate the Land Grabbing Court about quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in W.P.No.3679/2023 dated 05.06.2023 as stated supra. Under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR in crime No.28/2023, which were quashed by this Court in W.P.No.3679/2023 as well as the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned proceedings before the Land Grabbing Court are exactly identical and similar in nature in relation to same - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:679 CRL.P No. 12274 of 2023 transactions, documents, etc., relating to and involving same immovable properties. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner being a Senior Sub-Registrar cannot be held to be liable for offences punishable under the KLGP Act as alleged against him. Under these circumstances, having regard to the quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in W.P.No.3679/2023 dated 05.06.2023 coupled with the fact that there is no material whatsoever to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences before the Land Grabbing Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is herby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in LGC (S) No.27/2023 on the file of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition (Special Court), Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. RB/SV Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE