IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.179/2013 BETWEEN:
1. B.S.SRINIVAS, S/O B.T.SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O BELLUR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, NOW R/AT NO.205, “KUTEERAM”, 8TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE – 19.
2. B.S.HIRIYANNA, S/O B.T.SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O KOTTANAGERE STREET, BELLUR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
3. B.S.ANILKUMAR, S/O B.T.SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O BELLUR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, NOW R/AT NO.34, 9TH “A” MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 96. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS POLICE: BELLUR P.S., NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP II) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN FIR NO.302/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE C.J. (JR.DN.) & JMFC., NAGAMANGALA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SPP-II for the respondents.
2. An FIR No.302/2012 is registered against the petitioners herein and other accused persons under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’). The petitioners herein are shown as accused Nos.1 to 3. The said FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2-Revenue Inspector of Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk.
3. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners herein have unauthorisedly encroached into the Government land comprised in Sy.No.105/2D. The extent of encroachment is not specified either in the complaint or in the annexures enclosed thereto.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when an issue of encroachment was raked up by the Revenue authorities, petitioner No.1 herein was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the property comprised in Sy.No.105/2D of Bellur village, Nagamangala Taluk, in O.S.No.107/2006. In the said suit, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, the Block Education Officer as well as the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka were arrayed as the defendants. After trial, the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, by judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 in O.S.No.107/2006 restrained the defendants therein namely the Revenue authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties by way of permanent injunction. The certified copy of the said judgment and decree is produced as Annexure-C to the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of the defendants have challenged the judgment and decree rendered by the Civil Court. As such, the said decree has attained finality. In the wake of the said decree, the allegations made against petitioners-1 to 3 that they are in unlawful occupation of the Government land is patently wrong. In support of his submission, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the finding recorded by the Trial Court in para-16 of the judgment in O.S.No.107/2006, which is extracted here below:
“16. The important documents in the case is Ex.P39 the report and the sketch Ex.P40 submitted by the Revenue Inspector before the learned Tahasildar Nagamangala stating that the school building and play ground of school is exists within 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/2 and remaining 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/2 there are 3 shopping complex belongs to the plaintiff Srinivas, Hiriyanna and Anil Kumar all are sons of B.T.Sathyanarayana. Ex.P39 the report of revenue inspector and Ex.P40 the revenue sketch prepared by the surveyor attached to the Taluk Survey office of Nagamangala prepared as per directions of the learned Tahasildar, Nagamangala as per directions of the Task Force for protection of Government land. Therefore these records not prepared at the investigation or request of the plaintiff on the other hand these records are prepared as per allegations made by the defendant No.1 against the plaintiff to enquire the alleged encroachment of the plaintiff in 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/2. Thereafter the learned Tahasildar, Nagamangala submitted the entire report Ex.P 59 before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandya stating that the school building and play ground belongs to the defendant No.1 are exists in land Sy.No.105/2 with an extent of 35 guntas and another 1 gunta of kharab land in total 36 guntas is in possession of the defendant No.1. In the report it is further mentioned that the suit properties are in 3 guntas in the same survey number which was retained by the original owner Thammaiah. On the basis of report the Task Force for protection of Government lands ordered that the school building, play ground are existing within 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/2 belongs to the defendant No.1. It is further held in the order that there is no encroachment by the plaintiff as alleged by the defendant No.1.”
6. The contesting respondents have not produced any material before the Court to show that the above decree has been challenged by any one of the defendants therein. The issue of encroachment has been answered by the Civil Court with reference to the Revenue Inspector’s Report and the Reports submitted by the Tahasildar and the Task Force for protection of the Government land. In the absence of any challenge to the said decree it stands established that the petitioners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.105/2D measuring 03 guntas along with 01 gunta of Kharab land. It is also a matter of record that the said properties contain three shop premises, which are in possession of the petitioner No.1 herein (accused No.1) and his two brothers who are shown as accused Nos.2 and 3.
7. In view of the above unimpeachable documents, the prosecution of the petitioners herein for the alleged offence punishable under Section 192(A) of the Act cannot be sustained. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners prima facie, are without any basis and amount to abuse of process of the Court and hence, cannot be allowed to be continued.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings arising out of Cr.No.302/2012 are quashed only insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. The proceedings insofar as the other accused persons are concerned shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2016 filed by the Respondents-State for vacating stay stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE TL