Karnataka High Court
B H Narayanappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 25.06.2026
Pronounced on : 07.07.2026
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.24242 OF 2017 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.16306 OF 2017 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.24242 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
B.H.NARAYANAPPA
S/O HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
Digitally signed
COMMISSIONER,
by PADMAVATHI DAVANAGERE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BK DAVANAGERE - 577 501.
Location: High ... PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 500 001.
2
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
(SUBSTITUTED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.11.2022)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
CENTRAL ZONE,
BENGALURU - 500 001.
4. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
5. SRI R.VENKATARAMANA
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SONNASHETTIHALLI,
2ND MAIN, CHINTAMANI TOWN - 563 125.
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1 AND R-6;
SRI VENKATESH ARBATTI, SPL.PP FOR R-2 TO R-4;
SMT.KEERTHI REDDY, A/W
SRI MAYUR D.BHANU AND SRI PADMANABHA J.,
ADVOCATES FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY
3
ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO.ACB/CBP/PETITION/02/2016
DATED 20.6.2016 ISSUED BY R-4 AT ANNEX-B; QUASH THE FIR
NO.4/2017 DATED 11.4.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
HON'BLE DISTRICT SESSION & SPL. COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR
DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE-C SO FOR IT
RELATES TO THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.16306 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI CHOWDAREDDY
S/O LATE ANJANEYA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALAPALLI,
CHINTAMANI TOWN - 563 125
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. LOKAYUKTHA
REPRESENTED BY SPP
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4
3. SRI R.VENKATARAMANA
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SONNASHETTIHALLI,
2ND MAIN, CHINTAMANI TOWN - 563 125
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
(AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER DATED 04.08.2023)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, SPL.PP FOR R-2;
SMT.KEERTHI REDDY, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI MAYUR D.BHANU AND SRI PADMANABHA J.,
ADVOCATES FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D DATED.11.4.2017 IN
CRIME NO.4/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(c)(d) OF PC ACT AND
SECTION 447 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners, in both these cases, are different accused in
the same crime in Crime No.4 of 2017 registered for offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
and Section 447 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: -
IN W.P.No.16306 of 2017:
2.1. The petitioner/accused No.1 was said to be a Member of
the Legislative Assembly. A complaint comes to be registered by
the 3rd respondent on 24-04-2016 alleging criminal conspiracy and
allied offences against the petitioner, one M.C. Balaji and M.C.
Sudhakar and the then Commissioner of the City Municipal Council,
Chintamani, Sub-Registrar and several other public servants. The
criminal law thus gets into motion by the said complaint. The
complaint was made to the then Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB'),
6
presently the Karnataka Lokayukta. The complaint becomes a crime
in Crime No.4 of 2017. Registration of crime has immediately driven
the petitioner in the subject petition as well as the petitioner in the
companion petition to the doors of this Court. On 20-04-2017 a
coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice regarding rule
granted ad-interim order of stay insofar as the petitioner is
concerned. The Court also directed that the matter to be listed after
summer vacation and observed that the petitioner shall fully
cooperate in the investigation.
IN W.P.No.24242 of 2017:
2.2. The petitioner in the case at hand is accused No.2 in
Crime No.4 of 2017. The complaint is common in both the cases.
Registration of complaint and the consequent crime has driven the
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. No interim order is
operating in this case. In view of the interim order operating in the
companion petition, no investigation has taken place with respect to
FIR in Crime No.4 of 2017.
7
3. Heard Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16306 of 2017,
Sri B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.24242 of 2017, Sri Thejesh, P, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 in Writ Petition
No.16306 of 2017 and respondents 1 and 6 in Writ Petition
No.24242 of 2017, Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondents 2 to 4 in both the writ
petitions and Smt. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.16306 of 2017 and respondent
No.5 in Writ Petition No.24242 of 2017 in both the writ petitions.
4. For the sake of convenience the petitioner in W.P.No.16306
of 2017 would be referred as petitioner No.1 and likewise, the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.24242 of 2017 as petitioner No.2 in
the course of this order. The other parties would be referred to, as
obtaining in the writ petitions.
8
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONERS:
IN W.P.No.16306 OF 2017:
5.1. The learned senior counsel Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy
appearing for petitioner No.1/accused No.1 would contend that the
complaint so registered by the complainant before the ACB is a
product of political rivalry between the two. There is no substance
in the complaint. It is the allegation that sons of petitioner No.1 one
M.C.Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar have played certain role along with
their father/petitioner No.1 in knocking of a property belonging to
Government in Sy.No.11 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas situate at
Kannampalli village, Chintamani Taluk and have formed sites and
sold them as if it is their property. The learned senior counsel
submits that it is only to bring a black mark to the unimpeachable
career of petitioner No.1, the crime has been registered. Petitioner
No.1 himself has on more than one occasion offered that if there is
any encroachment of Government land, he would give up the land
or give alternate land. In the light of there being no encroachment
in the case at hand or petitioner No.1 and his sons being entitled to
9
keep the land on the plea of adverse possession, the very crime
registered that too for offences under the Act is wholly untenable.
5.2. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that on
the date of the complaint neither petitioner No.1 nor his son was
holding the position of a Member of Legislative Assembly.
Therefore, the offences under the Act cannot be laid against a
former Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Member of
Parliament, as the case would be. The complaint is made on
24-04-2016 preliminary investigation report was conducted on
20-06-2016 and the case is registered on 11-04-2017 after almost
a year and, therefore, the crime must be quashed. It is his
submission that petitioner No.1 was shown as cultivator in respect
of Sy.No.11 for the years 1966-67 to 1986-87 and therefore, there
is no warrant for registration of crime on the alleged act that
petitioner No.1 had knocked of Government property, converted it
as sites and sold them.
10
IN W.P.No.24242 OF 2017:
6. The learned counsel Sri B.K. Manjunath appearing for
accused No.2 would submit that petitioner No.2 worked as
Commissioner, City Municipal Council from June 1998 to July 2000
and on 4-07-2015 a show cause notice is issued to him stating that
he has illegally registered the Government Kharab land bearing
Sy.No.11 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his sons. It is his
submission that petitioner No.2 has nothing to do with the
allegations made. The complaint simply names petitioner No.2 who
was on the verge of his retirement. Petitioner No.2 has retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2020 and
today if investigation would be permitted on a complaint which has
nothing against him, it would cause grave prejudice to this
petitioner. He would submit that accused No.2 is getting into the
web of controversy for an alleged political rivalry between the
petitioner in the companion petition, his family and the
complainant.
11
COMPLAINANT IN COMMON:
7.1. Contrariwise, the learned counsel Smt. Keerthi Reddy
representing the complainant would threadbare refute the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by
taking this Court through the existing documents collected and
placed before the Court, at the time of hearing of the matter.
According to the learned counsel in 1965-66 land in Sy.No.11 of
Kannampalli Village, Chinthamani Taluk measuring 1 acre 19 guntas
is shown as Hullu Banni Kharab in the RTC. In the year 1989
Sri Chowdareddy/petitioner No.1 was elected as Member of
Legislative Assembly from Chinthamani constituency. After the
election, it appears the land in Sy.Nos. 12 and 13 which were
allegedly owned by his family was sought to be converted from
agriculture to non-agricultural purposes. An application is made to
the Assistant Commissioner in this regard. The land is converted
but while getting it converted, petitioner No.1 and his family have
taken away Sy.No.11, the Government land, as land belonging to
them.
12
7.2. An unregistered General Power of Attorney ('GPA') then
comes to be executed by M.C.Balaji, son of petitioner No.1 in favour
of Government Employees House Building Cooperative Society. On
the strength of the GPA, the President and the Secretary of the said
Society executed sale deeds in favour of several persons and
several sites out of them are in the name of M.C. Balaji, son of
Chowdareddy, petitioner No.1. Several sites further formed and
sold. She would further contend that the complainant comes to be
elected as a Councilor of Chinthamani Municipal Corporation. He
then found huge foul play and land grabbing by the family of
accused No.1. First communication springs resulting an enquiry and
then the impugned complaint. It is not that the complaint has
sprung from air. All materials were available prior to registration of
complaint itself. The learned counsel would submit that in terms of
Rule 21(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, a 'B' kharab
land can never become the property of any person occupying it. It
can used only for the purposes that are enumerated under the
Rules. The learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petitions
contending that the matter requires investigation in the least and
for the last 9 years the investigation is stalled, in a case that
13
concerns grave public interest, as government land is grabbed by
the petitioner No.1 and family.
LOKAYUKTHA:
8. The learned counsel Sri Venkatesh S.Arbatti representing
the Lokayukta would contend that after the complaints were
received a preliminary enquiry, as obtaining in law, was conducted
and it was found that 1 acre 19 guntas was allegedly knocked of by
the family of accused No.1 and, therefore, it was opined that crime
should be registered on the said allegation. He would also seek
dismissal of the petitions and conduct of investigation on the
ground that allegation was made out.
9. The learned senior counsel Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy would
join issue in contending that the documents produced by the
respondents would not lead to any allegation or ingredients of
crime. Accused No.1 has an unimpeachable career in politics and
political rivalry is sought to be projected to become a crime.
Therefore, the matter must not be permitted to be investigated.
14
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
11. Before this Court ventures into the core issue in the
lis whether the investigation in the case at hand deserves to
be interdicted, at its threshold or permitted to take its lawful
course, it becomes necessary to undertake a brief but
journey into the history of the land that forms the epicentre
of the present controversy, for, the story of the crime does
not commence with the complaint; it begins much earlier,
buried in revenue records, concealed in transactions, and
ultimately surfacing through the tell-tale footprints of
alleged encroachment by accused No.1 and his sons
M.C.Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar.
15
THE FOOTPRINTS:
12. Certain facts stand admitted and, therefore, beyond the
realm of controversy. During the year 1965-66, land measuring 1
acre 19 guntas in Survey No.11 of Kannampalli Village, Chintamani
Taluk, stood classified in the Record of Rights as Hullu Banni
Kharab. The RTC produced before this Court bears eloquent
testimony to this fact. More significantly, the revenue entries from
29-09-2021 till 2026 continue to reflect the very same
classification. Column No.9 of the RTC would read as follows:
16
The record of rights of the very land from 29-09-2021 till 2026 with
respect to column No.9 reads as follows:
When the revenue records of 1965-66 are placed shoulder
to shoulder with those of 2026, one incontrovertible truth
emerges with remarkable clarity is, the character of Survey
No.11 has remained immutable. Time has marched forward,
governments have changed, offices have changed hands,
17
political fortunes have risen and fallen--but Survey No.11
has remained what it always was: Government Hullu Banni
Kharab land.
13. Accused No.1 came to occupy a position of political
power, upon being elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly
in 1989. It is during this period of political relevance that events
begin to assume significance. The information about his election
and the term is as follows:
"ಸಂ ೆ ೕಧ ಾ ಮತು ಉ ೇಖ ಾ ಾ ೆಯ ಲಭ ರುವ ಾ ಯಂ ೆ ದಲ ೇ "ಾನ
ಸ$ೆ%ಂದ 14 ೇ "ಾನ ಸ$ೆಯವ&ೆ 'ೆ (ಂ ಾಮ) *ೇತ+,ಂದ ಚು ಾ%ತ&ಾ.ರುವ ಾನ
ಸದಸ ರುಗಳ ಅವ2ಯ ವರ:
ವರ
ಕ+.ಸಂ. *ೇತ+ ಾಸಕರ 4ೆಸರು "ಾನಸ$ೆ ಅವ2
- - - - -
11. (ಂ ಾಮ) 5ೌ7ಾ&ೆ89 ಒಂಬತ ೇ "ಾನಸ$ೆ
"ಾನಸ$ೆ 18.12.1989 jAzÀ 17.12.1994"
The sons of accused No.1 initiated proceedings for conversion of
lands in Survey Nos.12 and 13 from agricultural use to residential
purpose. The said documents read as follows:
"£ÀA.:JJ¯ïJ£ï.J¸ïDgï:44:92-93. ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>gï ರವರ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ,
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು
18
¢£ÁAPÀ:29-5-1993.
ಷಯ :- (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸ$ಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ:ನಂ:
12ರ GೈI 1-21 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜ«ÄÃನು ಮ ೆ ¤ªÉÃಶನಗE'ಾ. =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89
©N DAಜ ೇಯ&ೆ89 ಎಂಬುವO'ೆ ¨sÀÆ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು
ಾ8ರುವ ಬ'ೆP.
ಉ ೇಖ:- ಸ4ಾಯಕ ಕ«ÄÃಷನR, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರ ಅ2ಕೃತ eÁÐ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ
PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ JJ¯ïJ£ï.¹Dgï:7:92-93, ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-11-1992.
-O-
-:: ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ +?ೆ ::-
=+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ©N ಆಂಜ ೇ ಯ &ೆ89 ಾಳಪ 'ಾ+ಮದವರು ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ:ನಂ:
12 ರ GೈI 1-21 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನನು[ \ಾಸದ ಮ ೆ V\ೇಶನಗE'ಾ. ಉ ೇಖದಂ ೆ ಸ4ಾಯಕ
ಕZಷನR, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ಉಪ- $ಾಗ, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರು ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ಚದರ8
ಎಂದ?ೆS. 0-03 ¥ÉÊ¸É 2] ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ದು>, ಮಂಜೂರು _ಾರರು ಭೂ-
ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ವ'ೈ&ೆ(2055-00) ಎ&ೆqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ LªÀvÉÛöÊzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ¯£ï £ÀA:37
ºÁUÀÆ vÁjÃRÄ 21-5-93 ರಂ ೆ `ೖಸೂರು aಾ ಂb, (ಂ ಾಮ) ಯ ಜ ಾ ಾ8 µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ
ಬದc ಾ. V"ಾAರdಾ ಮುಚeE?ೆಯನು[ ಬ&ೆದು?ೊfgರುವTದOಂದ, ಈ ?ೆಳಕಂಡ µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ ಒಳ ಪ8]
ಜZೕನು ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ +?ೆಯನು[ Vೕ8_ೆ.
-:µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ:-
1) ಮಂಜೂರು_ಾರರು ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂ-ಕಂzÁಯ ಅ2Vಯಮ 95(2) ರನು[ @ಾವ ?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ
ಉಲಂಘ ೆ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು.
2) Vಗ2ತ ಉzÉÝÃಶ?ೆS ಾತ+ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ರು ೆ.
3) ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಮಂಡl ಪಂ5ಾ¬ÄÛ ಅಥ\ಾ ಪTರಸ$ೆ'ೆ Vಗ2ತ ಶುಲS Gಾವ ಾ8 ಪರ\ಾನ.
ಪ7ೆದ ನಂತರ\ೇ ಕಟgಡ VZAಸತPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
4) @ಾವ ?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ, ¸ÀÜಳ ಬದ¯ÁªÀuÉ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು.
5) ಆಜುaಾಜು_ಾರO'ೆ @ಾವT_ೇ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄßAlÄ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು.
6) ರnೆ'ಾ. nಾಕಷುg oಾಗ pಡತಕSದು.
19
7) ಸದOೕ ಷರvÀÄÛಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂWÀ£É ಾ8ದ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ವoಾ
ಾಡ ಾಗªÀÅzÀÄ
¸À»/-
ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>R
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು."
.... .... ....
£ÀA.:JJ¯ïJ£ï.J¸ïDgï:40:92-93. ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>gï ರವರ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ,
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು
¢£ÁAPÀ:29-5-1993.
ಷಯ :- (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ:ನಂ: 13
ರ GೈI 1-20 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನು ಮ ೆ V\ೇಶನಗE'ಾ. =+ೕ ಎಂ.].
aಾ ಾr ©N 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಎಂಬುವO'ೆ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು
ಾ8ರುವ ಬ'ೆ.
ಉ ೇಖ:- ಸ4ಾಯಕ ಕZಷನR, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ಉಪ- $ಾಗ (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರ
ಅ2ಕೃತ sಾಪನ ಪತ+ದ ಕ+ ಾಂಕ JJ¯ïJ£ï.¹Dgï:5:92-93,
¢£ÁAPÀ:29-7-92.
-:: ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ +?ೆ :-
=+ೕ ಎಂ.]. aಾ ಾr ©N 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ªÀiÁ¼À¥À°è UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀgÀÄ ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸಃನಂ: 13 ರ
\ೈI 1-20 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನನು[ ಮ ೆ V\ೇಶನಗE'ಾ. ಉ ೇಖದಂ ೆ ಸ4ಾಯಕ ಕZಷನR (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ
ಉಪ- $ಾಗ, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರು ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ಚದರ8 ಒಂದ?ೆS 0-03 Gೈ¸É 2] ಭೂ-
ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ದು> ಮುಂಜೂರು_ಾರರು ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ವ'ೈ&ೆ (2022-00) ಎ&ೆಡು
nಾ ರದ E¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ gÀÆGಾ%ಗಳu ಾತ+ ಚಲN ನಂ: 38 4ಾಗೂ , ಾಂಕ: 21-593 ರಂತ `ೖಸೂರು
¨ÁåAPï, (ಂ ಾಮ)ಯ ಜ ಾ ಾ8 µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ ಬzÀÞ ಾ. V"ಾAರuÁ ಮುಚeE?ೆಯನು[
ಬ&ೆದು?ೊfgರುವTದOಂದ, ಈ ?ೆಳಕಂಡ µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ ಒಳಪ8], ಜZೕನು ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ +?ೆಯನು[
Vೕ8_ೆ.
-:µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ:-
1) ಮಂಜೂರು_ಾರರು ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂ-ಕಂ_ಾಯ ಅ2Vಯಮ 95(2) gÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ
?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ ಉಲಂಘ ೆ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು.
20
2) Vಗ2ತ ಉ_ೆ>ೕಶ?ೆS ಾತ+ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮುಂಜೂರು ಾ8ರು ೆ.
3) ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಮಂಡl ಪಂ5ಾ¬ÄÛ ಅಥ\ಾ ಪTರಸ$ೆ'ೆ Vಗ2ತ ಶುlಕ Gಾವ ಾ8
ಪರ\ಾನ. ಪ7ೆದ ನಂತರ\ೇ ಕಟgಡ VZAಸತPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
4) @ಾವ ?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ, ¸ÀÜಳ ಬದ¯ÁªÀuÉ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು.
5) ಆಜುaಾಜು_ಾರO'ೆ @ಾವT_ೇ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄßAlÄ ಾಡ¨ÁgÀದು.
6) ರnೆ'ಾ. nಾಕಷುg oಾಗ pಡತಕSದು.
7) ಸದOೕ ಷರvÀÄÛಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂWÀ£É ಾ8zÀÝ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ವoಾ
ಾಡ ಾಗªÀÅzÀÄ
¸À»/-
ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>R
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು."
14. Thereafter came a partition deed within the family of
Chowdareddy. The deed, on its face, pertains to Survey Nos.12 and
13. It distributes 37 residential sites amongst the family members--
12 sites to Chowdareddy, 13 to M.C. Balaji and 12 to M.C.
Sudhakar. Had the matter rested there, perhaps little would
have required further scrutiny. But the partition deed does
not rest there. 'Buried within its later recitals lies the real
story'. M.C. Balaji is shown to have received 7 sites, and M.C.
Sudhakar, now a sitting legislator - another 7 sites, carved out of
Survey No.11. Survey No.11, it bears repetition, is not private land.
It is Government Hullu Banni Kharab land.The conclusion therefore
21
is not difficult to draw. Government land appears to have been
treated, as though it was ancestral property, partitioned inter se
amongst family members, and dealt with as a commodity of private
ownership. What could not legally be owned appears to have
been privately divided; what could never be alienated
appears to have been bartered within the family.
15. Later, accused No.1 and his son M.C. Balaji executed an
unregistered General Power of Attorney in favour of the
Government Employees House Building Co-operative Society,
empowering its office bearers to sell sites formed in Survey Nos.12
and 13, while the factual matrix unmistakably reveals that layouts
had also engulfed Survey No.11. Sites were formed. Sites were
sold. Khatas were issued. Third-party interests were created.
Government land had, for all practical purposes, vanished
beneath concrete and private possession.
22
THE GENESIS OF THE PRESENT ISSUE:
16. The story remained buried until 2014, when the
complainant was elected as a Councillor of Chintamani Municipal
Council. Another Councillor sought information from the Tahsildar
as to whether Survey No.11 had ever been allotted to any
Government institution. The reply assumes significance. It reads as
follows:
"£ÀA.:¹.Dgï:109/14-15 ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>gï ರವರ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ,
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು
¢£ÁAPÀ:21-01-2015.
-:: ಂಬರಹ :-
ಷಯ :- (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA
ನಂ.11 ರ aಾ§ÄÛ 1ಎ-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಆ.ದು>
@ಾO'ಾದರೂ ಮಂಜೂರು ಆ._ೆ ಅಥ\ಾ ಇಲ\ೇ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ'ೆP
ಂಬರಹ Vೕಡುವ ಬ'ೆP .
ಉ ೇಖ:- 1) ಅrA_ಾರ&ಾದ ಎ|.ನಟ&ಾ} pN ೇ~ ಎಂ.]ೕನಪ• ರವರ
ಅrA , ಾಂಕ : 19-1-2015
2) &ಾಜಸ€VೕOೕ•ಕರು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ರವರ ವರ, , ಾಂಕ :
21-1-2015
3) ಾಲೂಕು, ಭೂ/ ಾ/ ಾ ೆ, ((ಂ) ಇ.817/14-15 ರಂ ೆ
ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕರು, ಾಲೂಕು, ಭೂ ಾಪನ ಾ ೆ, (ಂ ಾಮ)
ರವರ ವರ,.
★★★
(ಂ ಾಮ) ನಗರ, \ಾ) ಾ ೆ ಹ ರ, nೊಣ ೆfgಹE‚ \ಾ] ಎ|.ನಟ&ಾ} pN
ಎಂ.]ೕನಪ• ಎಂಬುವರು (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.11 ರ aಾ§ÄÛ 1ಎ-19
23
ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಜZೕನು @ಾವT_ಾದರೂ ಸಂಘ ಸಂnೆƒಗE'ೆ/ಸ?ಾAO
ಕಟgಡಗE'ೆ/\ೈಯುIಕ ವ IಗE'ೆ / @ಾವT_ೇ ಇ ಾ ೆಗE'ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಅ._ೆ„ೕ ಅಥ\ಾ ಇಲ\ೇ
ಎಂಬು_ಾ. Vೕ8ರುವ ಮನ `ೕ&ೆ'ೆ, ಪO=ೕ ಸ ಾ., ಉ ೇಖ (2) ರಂ ೆ ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕರು,
ಾಲೂಕು ಭೂ ಾಪನ ಾ ೆ, (ಂ ಾಮ) ರವರ ವರ,, 4ಾಗೂ ಸದO ಕ...ೇO%ಂದ Vೕ8ರುವ
ಆ?ಾRಬಂ†, ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬR ಮೂಲ ಪ+ ಯ‡ಾ ನಕಲು 4ಾಗೂ ಕ...ೇOಯ ಲಭ \ಾ.ರುವ ಆ
R.ಆR. 5 ರ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳu, 1965-66 ೇ nಾ Vಂದ 2001-02 ರವ&ೆ'ೆ ?ೈ ಬರಹ ಪಹ)ಗಳu,
2002-03 Oಂದ 2014-15 ರವ&ೆ.ನ ಗಣIೕಕೃತ ಪಹ)ಗಳu, ಈ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ ]ರು ೆ.
ಈ ಕ...ೇOಯ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಲಭ ರುವಂ
ರುವಂ ೆ,ೆ ಪO=ೕ ]ರುವಂ ೆ,ೆ ಪ+nಾˆತ ಜZೕನು
ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಆ.ದು> 1ಎ
ಎ-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಸ?ಾAರ,ಂದ @ಾವT_ೇ ಧ\ಾದ,
ಧ\ಾದ @ಾವT_ೇ
ಸ?ಾAO ಇ ಾ ೆಗE'ೆ ಅಗ ೕ,
ೕ ಸಂಘ ಸಂnೆƒಗE'ೆ ಅಗ ೕ,
ೕ ಅಥ\ಾ ಾಸ. ವ IಗE'ೆ ಅಗ ೕ
ಮಂಜೂರು ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ,
ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ ಈ ಜZೕನು ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS nೇO_ಾ>.ರುತ_ೆ,
ರುತ_ೆ ಎಂಬು_ಾ.
ಎಂಬು_ಾ. EಯುವTದು.
EಯುವTದು
¸À»/-
ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>R
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು.
'ೆ
ಎ|.ನಟ&ಾ} pN ಎಂ.]ೕನಪ•
\ಾ) ಾ ೆ ಹ ರ, nೊಣ‰ ೆfg ಹE‚,
(ಂ ಾಮ) ನಗರ."
The reply dated 21-01-2015 is devastating in its simplicity: Survey
No.11 was Government Hullu Banni Kharab then; it remains
Government Hullu Banni Kharab now; and it was never
allotted to any institution. The issue soon became public
discourse. Media attention followed. Public scrutiny intensified. It is
in that backdrop that accused No.1 himself addressed a
representation to the Deputy Commissioner, stating that, if Survey
24
No.11 had been encroached by him or his family, it would be
returned to the State. By then, however, the cat was not
merely out of the bag--it had run far beyond retrieval.
17. Two facts became glaringly apparent. First, encroachment
stood virtually admitted. Second, there remained nothing to
restore. The land had already been converted into sites, alienated,
and absorbed into private hands. One cannot return to the State
what has already been fragmented, sold, and built upon. The
communication reads as follows:
"ರವO'ೆ,
ಾನ r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ r ೆ,
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ.
ರವOಂದ,
5ೌಡ&ೆ89
ಾr ಗೃಹ ಸ(ವರು
ನಂ.1805 ಾಳಪ
(ಂ ಾಮ) -563125
ಮ ೆ.08154-250094
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
ಷಯ:-ಇಂ,ನ (, ಾಂಕ:04-02-2015) ,ನ ಪತ+?ೆS ಜಯ \ಾ)ಯ ಬಂ,ರುವ
ಪ +?ಾ ವರ,ಯ ಷಯ\ಾ..
25
******
`ೕಲSಂಡ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂ ೆ ಇಂ,ನ ಜಯ \ಾ) ಸಂ(?ೆಯ ಪTಟ ಸಂ ೆ 5 ರ
ಪ+ಕಟ\ಾ.ರುವ ” 5ೌಡ&ೆ89’ೆ ಭೂ ಕಬE?ೆ ಕಂಟಕ” ಎಂಬು_ಾ. ವರ,@ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಆ ವರ,ಯ ರುವ
5ಾರಗಳನು[ ಗಮVಸ ಾ. ನನ’ೆ ಬಹಳ ಆಶeಯA\ಾ. ಈ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg _ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು[
ಪO=ೕಲ]ರು ೇ ೆ. ಆ ಷಯ\ಾ. ನನ[ 4ೆಸOನ ರುವ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE
ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ರ 1ಎಕ&ೆ-21 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಮತು ಇ_ೇ ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ
ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ರ 1ಎಕ&ೆ -20 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ನನ[ Oಯ ಮಗ 7ಾ|| ಎಂ.].aಾ ಾr ರವರ
4ೆಸOನ ರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ವರ,ಯ E]ರುವ 4ಾ’ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11ರ ಪಹ)ಯನು[
ಇಂದು ಪ8,ದು>, ಗಮVಸ ಾ. ಇದರ 1ಎಕ&ೆ-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಹುಲು ಬV[, ಖ&ಾz ಎಂಬು_ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ.
ಈ ಸ€ ನ ಮೂಲವನು[ ತಮ’ೆ Eಸಲು ಬಯಸು ೇ ೆ.ೆ
ಸದO ಸ€ತು ಅಂದ&ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ನನ’ೆ ನನ[ _ೊಡ9ಪ•ನವ&ಾದ =+ೕ.\ೆಂಕಟ&ೆ89
pN ಪyೇl 5ೌಡ&ೆ89, ರವOಂದ 1950-51 ರ ಾನು ಸು ಾರು 13 ವಷA ವಯ]‹ನ
ಹುಡಗನ._ಾ>ಗ ಇತ&ೆ ಅವರ ಸ€ತುಗŠೆŒ ಂ,’ೆ l ಾಮ ಮುಂ ಾತರ ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಅ_ೇ Oೕ @ಾ.
ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ಸ4ಾ ನನ[ ಮ ೊಬ• _ೊಡ9ಪ•ನವ&ಾದ ಮುV ಾZ&ೆ89 pN
ಪyೇl 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಇವOಂದ ಇವರ ಮಗ ಾದ ಎಂ. ಾ&ಾಯಣ&ೆ89 ರವರ 4ೆಸO’ೆ ¥sÀವ \ಾರಸು‹£ÀA ೆ
ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ನಮŽ ತಂ_ೆ ಎಂ.].ಆಂಜ ೇಯ&ೆ89 ಮತು ಅವರ ಅಣ‰ನ\ಾರದ ಮುV ಾZ&ೆ89 ಒಂ_ೇ
ಜಂf ಕುಟಂಬದ \ಾಸ ರು ಾ&ೆ. ನಂತರ 1989 ರ ಾನು ಮತು ನನ[ ಅಣ‰ ಅಂದ&ೆ
ಎಂ. ಾ&ಾಯಣ&ೆ89 pN ಮುV ಾZ&ೆ89 (ನಮŽ _ೊಡ9ಪ•ನವರ ಮಗ) ರವರು $ಾಗ\ಾ. ಒಟುg
ಆ]ಯನು[ $ಾಗ ಾ8?ೊಂಡ ಸಂದಭAದ ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13ರ 1ಎ-20 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ನನ[
$ಾಗ?ೆS ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. 4ಾ’ೇ ಆ ನಂತರ ನನ[ Oಯ ಮಗ ಾದ 7ಾ||ಎಂ.]. aಾ ಾr ರವರ 4ೆಸO’ೆ
ನಮŽ ಕುಟಂಬದ $ಾಗದಂ ೆ ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ.
ಈ ಸ€ ನ oೊ ೆ’ೆ ಾಳಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 45/3 ಮತು ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ
16 ಮತು 17 ನಮŽ ಒಟುg ಕುಟಂಬದ ಸದ ಸರ 4ೆಸOನ ದು>, ಸು ಾರು 100 ವಷAಗE.ಂತ Z. ಾ.
ಅಂ_ಾಜು 16 Oಂದ 17 ಎಕ&ೆ ಪ+_ೇಶದ ನಮŽ ಕುಟಂಬ ಕೃ• ಚಟುವf?ೆಗಳನು[ ನ7ೆಸು ತು, ಅಂದು
ನಮŽ ಪ• Aಕರ nಾ€2ೕ ಾನುಭದ ದ> ಗ8ಯಂ ೆ ಅವರ ನಂತರ ಸ4ಾ ಈ ಸ€ತುಗಳu ನಮŽ ಸ€ಂತ
nಾ€2ೕ ಾನುಭದ ದ>ವT.
29-05-1993 ರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ( ಆ_ೇಶ ಸಂ ೆ ಎ.ಎl.ಎN.ಎ|.ಆR: 44: 92-93) ಮತು ಸ\ೆA
ನಂ. 3 (ಆ_ೇಶ ಸಂ ೆ ಎ.ಎl.ಎN.ಎ|.ಆR: 44: 92-93) ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
26
ಅದರಂ ೆ 1-01-1994 ರ pl ಸಂ ೆ 371 ರ ಸ\ೆA 12 ರ ಅ’ವೃ,c ಶುಲS ಮತು pl
ಸಂ ೆ 372 ರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ರ ಅ’ವೃ,c ಶುಲSವನು[ ಅಂ,ನ (ನ[ಸಂದ+ ಮಂಡl ಪಂ5ಾ% ಯ
Gಾವ ಾ8ರು ೇ\ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ 1995 ರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ಮತು ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ಗE’ೆ ಪ+ ೆ ೕಕ\ಾ.
ಬ7ಾವdೆ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ತ@ಾO] ಅಂ,ನ ಮಂಡಲ ಪಂ5ಾಯ ಅಧ •ರ ಅನು ೕದ ೆಯನು[
ಪ8,ರು ೇ\ೆ. ಈ ಮಧ ದ ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮವನು[ (ಂ ಾಮ) ನಗರ ಸ$ೆ \ಾ ˆ’ೆ
ಒಳಪ8]ರು ಾ&ೆ. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಈ ಸ€ತು 06-12-2003 ರ ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ V ಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾರ
ಸಂಘ (V) ರವO’ೆ r.ˆ.ಎ.ಮು ಾಂತರ Vೕ8ರು ೇ\ೆ.
ನಮŽ ಕುಟಂಬವT ಸು ಾಯ 100 ವಷAಗE.ಂತ ಅಂದ&ೆ nಾ€ತಂತ+ ಪ•ವA ಮತು
nಾ€ತಂತ+ ನಂತರ nಾವAಜVಕ ಬದುIನ ದು>, ಸ?ಾAO ಸ€ತನು[ ?ಾನೂನು aಾ ರ\ಾ. ಒತುವO
ಅಥ\ಾ ಕಬE?ೆ ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವT,ಲ. ನಮŽ ಈ ಸು,ೕಘA nಾವAಜVಕ ಬದುIನ *ೇತ+ದ ಅ’ವೃ,c
ಮತು nಾವAಜVಕ ಆ]-Gಾ]ಗಳನು[ ?ಾಪಡುವ ಪ+ ಾ)ಕ ಪ+ಯತ[ ಾ8ರು ೇ\ೆ. ಈಗ ನಮŽ
ಗಮನ?ೆS ಬಂ,ರುವ 5ಾರ\ಾ. `ೕ¯ÉÆßà ೊಟ?ೆS ನZŽಂದ VZAತ\ಾ.ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆ’ೆ ಸ?ಾAO
ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz nೇOದ>&ೆ ಅದು ನಮŽ ಉ_ೆ>ೕಶ ಪ•ವAಕ\ಾ. ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ.
ಸದO ಆ]ಗಳu nೇOದಂ ೆ ನನ[ ಒಟುg ಆ]ಯ `ೕ ೆ ಈ ಂ_ೆ ಾನ ೋಕಯುಕರು
1996 ರ ೋಕಯುಕ ದೂOನಂ ೆ ವರ\ಾದ ತV ೆಯನು[ ?ೈ'ೊಂಡು ಸು2ೕಘA\ಾದ ವರ,ಗಳನು[
ಮತು _ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ ] ಸ\ೆA ಾ8] ದೂರು_ಾರರು ?ೊfgರುವ ದೂOನ
ಸ ಾ ಂಶ ಲ\ೆಂದು _ಾ\ೆಯನು[ ವoಾ ಾ8ರು ಾ&ೆ.
ನ’ಮ ಗಮನ?ೆS aಾರ_ೇ 4ಾಗೂ ಅ5ಾತುಯA,ಂದ ಅತಂಹ @ಾವT_ೇ ಒತುವO ಆ.ದ>
ಅದನು[ ಕೂಡ ೇ ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS pಟುg ?ೊಡಲು ಾನು ಮತು ನನ[ ಮಗ ]ದcO_ೆ>ೕ\ೆ. ಈಗ
ಆ.ರಬಹು_ಾ.ರುವಂತಹ ಅ5ಾತುಯAಗE’ೆ ಬಹು±À: ನೂರು ವಷAಗE.ಂತ 4ೆಚುe ಸದO ಆ]ಗಳu
ನಮŽ ಸ€ಂತ nಾ€2ೕ ಾನುಭದ ರುವTದು ?ಾರಣ\ಾ.ರಬಹು_ೆಂದು $ಾ ಸು ೇ ೆ.
ನನ[ ಇದುವ&ೆ.ನ ಸ\ಾAಜVಕ ಬದುIನ @ಾವT_ೇ Oೕ ಯ ಕಳಂಕ ಬರುವ Oೕ
ನ7ೆದು?ೊಂ8ರುವT,ಲ ಆದ>Oಂದ ಾನು ತಮŽ ?ೋರುವT_ೇ ೆಂದ&ೆ ಾವTಗಳu ಈ ಕೂಡ ೇ ಈ
\ಾ2ತ ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11,12,13, ರ oೊ ೆ’ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 6,9,8,14,16,17, ಮತು
ಾಳಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 45/3 ಇ\ೆಲದರ ಸ\ೆA ಾ8] ಅಳvÉ ಾ8 ಅದು>ಬಸು Vಗ2
ಾ8?ೊಡaೇ?ಾ. ತಮŽ ?ೇE?ೊಳu‚ ೇ ೆ. ಅಳ ೆ@ಾದ ನಂತರ ಾ ೇ ಾದರೂ ನನ[
ಅ5ಾತುಯA,ಂದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11 ರ ಒತುವO ಾ8ದ> ಪ•ದ ಕೂಡ ೇ ಅದನು[ ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS
ಒˆ•ಸಲು ನನ[ @ಾವT_ೇ ಅಭ ಂತರ ರುವT,ಲ. 4ಾಗೂ ಈ ಪ+I+„%ಂದ V\ೇಶನ
ಕŠೆದು?ೊಳu‚ವವO’ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸZೕಪದ ಇರುವ ಬದ ಜZೕನು ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ಬದc ಾ.ರು ೇ ೆ.
27
ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒ ಂ,'ೆ,
, ಾಂಕ:04-02-2015 vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
ಸƒಳ: (ಂ ಾಮ) ¸À»/-
(5ೌಡ&ೆ89)"
He would admit that if Sy.No.11 has been encroached by him or his
family, it will be immediately returned back to the State. One
factor became clear is that there was encroachment. The other is,
there was no land to return, as sites were formed and sold by the
date of the representation. The Deputy Commissioner then directs
spot inspection to be conducted and a sketch to be drawn in the
light of land grabbing allegation being projected in all print media.
The document of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10-02-20125
reads as follows:
ನಗರಸ$ಾ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ,
“ನಗರಸ$ಾ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ (ಂ ಾಮ)ಸಂ ೆ : ನಸ(/¹§âA¢/].ಆR/ /2014-15/713 , ಾಂಕ: 10-02-2015
ರವO’ೆ,
ಾನ ತಹ]ೕ ಾ>R ರವರು,
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು,
(ಂ ಾಮ).
ಾನ &ೆ,
28
ಷಯ :- ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1.19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಸ\ೆA
ಾ8 ಗ8 ಗುರುತು ಾಡುವ ಬ'ೆP.
ಉ ೇಖ :-1. ಅrA_ಾರರ ಮನ , ಾಂಕ: 02-02-2015
2. ತಮŽ ಕ...ೇO ಂಬರಹದ ಪತ+ದ ಸಂ ೆ :
ಎl.ಎN.8.].ಆR/109/2014-15 , ಾಂಕ: 21-01-2015
*****
`ೕಲSಂಡ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂ ೆ =+ೕ ನಟ&ಾ}.ಎ| ನಗರಸ$ಾ ಸದಸ ರು,
(ಂ ಾಮ) ರವರು ಉ ೇಖ ಪತ+ದನ€ಯ ದೂರು ಸ ] ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1.19
ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕVನ (ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz) ಅಕ+ಮ ಬ7ಾವdೆ VZA] ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಅಕ+ಮ
ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ ೆ&ೆ,ರುವ ಬ’ೆP ಸೂಕ ಕ+ಮ ?ೈ’ೊಳ‚ಲು ?ೋOರು ಾ&ೆ. ಆದ>Oಂದ ಾನ
r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ೌ”ಕ ಆ_ೇಶದಂ ೆ ಸದO ಜZೕನನು[ ಸ\ೆA ಾ8] ಗ8 ಗುರುತು ಾ8 ಒತುವO
ಬ’ೆP ವರ, Vೕಡಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮŽ ?ೋರ ಾ._ೆ. ಸದO ದೂರು 4ಾಗೂ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಪ+ ಗಳನು[
ಪತ+_ೊಂ,’ೆ ಲಗ ಸ ಾ.ದು> ಸಂಬಂ2]ದ ಎಲOಗೂ ೋfೕ| oಾO ಾ8 ಸ\ೆA ಾ8 ನ*ೆಯ
ಗುರುತು ಾ8 Vೕಡಲು ?ೋO_ೆ. ಇದನು[ ತುತುA ಎಂದು ಪOಗ)ಸಲು ?ೋO_ೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒ ಂ,'ೆ,
ತಮŽ ಾ€]
¸À»/-
Gೌ&ಾಯುಕರು
ನಗರಸ$ೆ, (ಂ ಾಮ)."
The Deputy Commissioner, sensing the gravity of the allegations,
ordered an immediate survey. The reports that followed from the
Municipal Authorities, the Tahsildar, and the Deputy Director of
Land Records are unambiguous. Survey No.11, a Government B
Kharab land, had been encroached upon, converted into a
residential layout, subdivided into sites, sold through
29registered instruments, and developed with constructions.
The report reads as follows:
“ನಗರಸ$ಾ
ನಗರಸ$ಾ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ,(ಂ
?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ (ಂ ಾಮ)ಸಂ ೆ : ನಸ(/]ಬ•ಂ,/].ಆR/ /2014-15 /713 , ಾಂಕ:09-03-2015
ರವO’ೆ,
ಾನ r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu,
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ r ೆ,
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ.
ಾನ &ೆ,
ಷಯ : ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕVನ ಅಕ+ಮ ಬ7ಾವdೆ VZA] ಅಕ+ಮ ಾ ೆಗಳನು[
ಾ8 ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವ ಬ'ೆP ವರ,.
ಉ ೇಖ : 1. =+ೕ ನಟ&ಾ} pN ೇ~ ]ೕನಪ• ನಗರಸ$ಾ ಸದಸ ರು ರವರ
ದೂOನ , ಾಂಕ: 02-02-2015
2. ತಮŽ ಪತ+ದ , ಾಂಕ:.-----
3. , ಾಂಕ: 06-12-2003 ರ ಾ8ರುವ ಜನರl ಪವR ಆ•
ಅyಾAV @ಾ nಾ ಾನ ಅ2?ಾರ ಪತ+.
******
ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ,]ದಂ ೆ ಉ ೇಖ (1) ರ ದೂರು ಮತು (2)ರ ಸೂಚ ೆಯಂ ೆ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು[
ಮತು ಸƒಳವನು[ ಪO=ೕ ಸ ಾ._ೆ. (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.
12 ಮತು ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 13 ರ ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕVನ ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳ ೆಯ
V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಂಗ8] ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಆ] ೆO’ೆ OrಸgRನ ಾ ೆ _ಾಖ ]ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ.
ಸದO ಭೂZಯ ಮೂಲ ಾ ೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 pN ಎಂ.].ಆಂಜ ೇಯ &ೆ89 ಮತು =+ೕ
ಎಂ.].aಾ ಾr pN 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಇವರು (ನ[ಸಂದ+ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೌ| |g ಪTಸಕ ಆಧO] ಒಟುg
ಭೂZಯ \ಾ ˆ’ೆ ಾ ೆಯನು[ ಪ7ೆದಂ ೆ ನಗರಸ$ೆ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ _ಾಖ ಾ._ೆ. ದೂರು_ಾರರು
30E]ರುವಂ ೆ ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZ’ೆ 1,31,769 ಚದರ8ಗಳಷುg ಭೂZ ಲಭ \ಾಗುತ_ೆ. ಆದ&ೆ
(ಂ ಾಮ) ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ _ಾಖ ಾ.ರುವ ಒಟುg 111 ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ ]_ಾಗ V\ೇಶನಗಳu ಮತು
ರnೆ’ೆ ?ಾ%>O]ರುವ oಾಗ nೇO ಒಟುg 1,62,349 ಚದರ8ಯಷುg ಬ7ಾವdೆ \ಾ ˆ’ೆ nೇO]?ೊಂ8ರುವTದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಾ8_ಾಗ ಸದO ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 12 ಮತು 13 ?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂಡಂ ೆ
ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಇರುವTದು ಮತು ಅದನು[ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ.
nೇO]?ೊಂಡು V\ೇಶನ ಂಗ8] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಒತುವO oಾಗದ ಸಹ
ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಾ ೆಗŠಾ.ದು> 5 ಮ ೆಗಳu V ಾAಣ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11 ರ 1
ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಜZೕನು ಆ.ರುವT_ಾ. ತಹ]ೕ ಾ>R (ಂ ಾಮ) ರವರು
, ಾಂಕ : 02-02-2015 ರಂದು ಂಬರಹ Vೕ8ರು ಾ&ೆ ಮತು ಸದO ಭೂZಯನು[ ಸ\ೆA ಾ8 ಗ8
ಗುರುತು ಾ8?ೊಡುವ ಬ’ೆP , ಾಂಕ: 10-02-2015 ರಂದು ಾನ ತಹ]ೕ ಾ>R ರವO’ೆ 4ಾಗೂ
ಭೂ ಾಪನ ಇ ಾ ೆ ರವO’ೆ ಪತ+ ಬ&ೆಯ ಾ._ೆ. ಈ ಬ’ೆP 2 ,ನ ಸ\ೆA ?ೆಲಸ ಾ8ದು> ಇದವ&ೆಗೂ
@ಾವT_ೇ ವರ,ಯ ಪ+ Vೕ8ರುವT,ಲ ಆದ&ೆ ಸ\ೆA ಾಡುವ ಸಂದಭAದ 4ಾಜOದ> ನನ’ೆ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.11
ರ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಒತವO ಾ8 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ರ(]ರುವTದು 4ಾಗೂ ?ೆಲವT ಮ ೆಗಳನು[
V ಾAಣ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,_ೆ.
ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.12 ಮತು 13 ರ ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ 29-05-1993 ರ ಭೂ
ಪOವತA ೆ ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಅದನು[ ಆಧO] ಒಟುg ಭೂZಯನು[ (3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ) ನಮೂ,] (ನ[ಸಂದ+
‘ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ ಾ ೆ _ಾಖ ಸ ಾ._ೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಪಂ5ಾ%%ಂದ ನಗರಸ$ೆ’ೆ ಹnಾಂತOಸ ಾ._ೆ
ಎನ[ ಾದ 4ೌ| |g OrಸgRVಂದ Eಯುತ_ೆ. (ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಬಳಸು ರುವ
ಪಂ5ಾ%%ಂದ ಹnಾಂತರ ಾಡ ಾ._ೆ ಎನ[ ಾದ ಪTಸಕ?ೆS @ಾವT_ೇ =ೕ•A?ೆ@ಾಗ , ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ
4ೆಸ&ಾಗ , ಅಥ\ಾ ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಹರು ಮತು ಸ ಸಹ ಇರುವT,ಲ ಇಂ_ೊಂದು ಕ5ಾe ಪTಸಕ\ಾ.ದು> ಈ
ಪTಸಕ ಆಧO] ನೂ&ಾರು ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ ನಗರಸ$ೆ _ಾಖ ೆ’ೆ ೆ’ೆದು?ೊಳ‚ ಾ._ೆ) ಆದ&ೆ ಸದO ಎಕ&ೆ ೆಕSದ
ಒಟುg ಾ ೆಯನು[ ನಗರಸ$ೆ _ಾಖ ೆಗE’ೆ _ಾಖ ಸು\ಾಗ ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳ ೆಯ V\ೇಶನಗಳ
ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ _ಾಖ ಸ ಾ._ೆ. ಈ ಸಂದಭAದ ಕ ಾAಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು ‘ಾ+ ಾಂತರ -ೕಜ ಾ
?ಾ„>ಯ8ಯ ಪಂ5ಾ%@ಾಗ ಅಥ\ಾ ನಗರಸ$ೆ@ಾಗ ಅನು ೕದ ೆಯನು[ ಪ7ೆ,ರುವT,ಲ ಮತು
ನಗರಸ$ೆಯು ಒಟುg 111 V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ ೆಗಳ ಒಟುg ಅಳ ೆಯನು[ ಗಮV]_ಾಗ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ
\ಾ ˆಯ ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz nೇOದಂ ೆ ಒಟುg 4 ಎಕ&ೆ 20 ಗುಂyೆಯ ಜZೕVನ \ಾ ˆ’ೆ ಾ ೆಗಳನು[
_ಾಖ ]ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ.
ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ Vಯಮಗಳ ರುದc\ಾ. 1999 4ಾಗೂ 2000 ೇ nಾ ನ
ಅnೆ|`ಂ~ OrಸgRನ ಎಕ&ೆ ೆಕSದ _ಾಖ ]ರು ಾ&ೆ ಮತು 17-05-2000 ಈ , ಾಂಕದ
ನಗರಸ$ೆ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂ ೆ 2212037 ರ ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ.. 3932/-, , ಾಂಕ: 17-05-2001 ರ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂ ೆ
: 0005578 ರ ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ. 1200/- ಮತು 17-05-2002 ರ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂ ೆ : 2212037 ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ.
31
1050/- ಮತು 17-05-2002 ರ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂ ೆ : 2212038 ರ ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ. 3230/- ಗಳu ನಗರಸ$ೆ’ೆ
ಅ’ವೃ,c ಶುಲS\ಾ. Gಾವ ] ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ _ಾಖ ]?ೊಂ8ರು ಾ&ೆ. ಸದO ವರಗಳu =+ೕ
5ೌಡ&ೆ89 4ಾಗೂ =+ೕ aಾ ಾr ರವರು ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕಕರ ಗೃಹ V ಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾರ ಸಂಘ VಯZತ
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಇವO’ೆ Vೕ8ರುವ r.ˆ.ಎ ಪತ+ದ ಲಭ \ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ನಂತರ 2002-03 ೇ nಾ Vಂದ
ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಸ?ಾAರ oಾO ಾ8ದ ಅnೆ|`ಂ~ ಪTಸಕ ಪದ> – ಆ] ೆO’ೆ OrಸgRನ ಸದO 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1
ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳ ೆಯ ಾ ೆಗಳ ಾ[. _ಾಖ ಸ ಾ._ೆ. ಸದO ಪTಸಕದ
@ಾವT_ೇ ಅ2?ಾOಯ ಹರು ಮತು ಸ ಇರುವT,ಲ. ಆದ&ೆ ಸದO ಾ ೆಗಳ GೈI ಅ ೇಕ ಾ ೆಗಳu
ವ’ಾAವdೆ@ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ಅಕ+ಮ ಹಗರಣದ ಆರಂಭ ಇ_ೇ ಸಂದಭAದ ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. `ೕಲSಂಡ 111
ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ _ಾಖ ] ಅ_ೇ ಆ”ಾರದ ಒಟುg 106 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಸ?ಾAO
ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ V ಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾO ಸಂಘ?ೆS ಮೂಲ ಾ ೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 4ಾಗೂ =+ೕ aಾ ಾr ರವರು
r.ˆ.ಎ ಮೂಲಕ ಾ&ಾಟ ಹಕುS ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ನಂತರ ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ V ಾAಣ
ಸಂಘವT ತನ[_ೆ ಒಂದು ೇ ಔ~ ನ*ೆ ತ@ಾರು ಾ8 ಸದಸ O’ೆ ಈ V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ಹಂ(?ೆ ಾ8 ಕ+@ಾ
ಾ8?ೊfgರುತ_ೆ. ಅದರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಾ&ಾz 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯು
ಸ4ಾ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. nೇO] ಬ7ಾವdೆ V ಾAಣ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಸ\ೆA ?ಾಯA ನ7ೆಸು\ಾಗ `ೕ ೊ[ೕಟ?ೆS
ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ.
`ೕ ನ ವರಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ ]_ಾಗ ಭೂZಯ ಾ ೕಕರು ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz
ಜZೕ ಾದ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ ಒತುವO ಾ8 ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. (ಂ ಾಮ) ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ
ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ _ಾಖ ]?ೊಂ8ರುವTದು 4ಾಗೂ ಸ?ಾAO ಭೂZಯನು[ nೇO] V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಾ8
ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ V ಾAಣ ಸಂಘದ ಮೂಲಕ ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು, ಆ ಮೂಲಕ ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS 4ಾಗೂ
ನಗರಸ$ೆ’ೆ ಮತು V\ೇಶನ ಖOೕ,]ರುವವO’ೆ ವಂಚ ೆ ಆ.ರುವTದು `ೕ ೊ[ೕಟ?ೆS ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO
ಭೂZಯ 111 V\ೇಶನಗಳ ರಚ ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಾ ೆ@ಾ.ದು> 106 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ಸ?ಾAO
ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ V ಾAಣ ಸಂಘದ ಮೂಲಕ ಾ&ಾಟ ಆ.ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಈ ಎ ಾ V\ೇಶನಗಳu
ನಗರ ಮತು ‘ಾ+ ಾಂತರ -ೕಜ ಾ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ Vಯಮಗಳನು[ 4ಾಗೂ ಮುV]ಪl ?ಾ„>ಯ
Vಯಮಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂ˜]ರರುವTದು ಮತು ಸ?ಾAರದ ಭೂZಯನು[ ಒತವO ಾ8 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[
ಂಗ8] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಸದO ಅಕ+ಮ ಾ ೆಗಳu ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ
_ಾಖ ]ರುವ , ಾಂಕದ =+ೕ ಾ&ಾಯಣಪ• ರವರು Gೌ&ಾಯುಕ&ಾ. nೇ\ೆ ಸ ]ರು ಾ&ೆ ಮತು =+ೕ
oೈ&ಾಮಯ 8]p ಗು ಾಸರು(Vವೃತರು) 4ಾಗೂ =+ೕ ಸZೕವT ಾ ಕಂ_ಾಯ
VOೕ•ಕರು(ಮೃತ&ಾ.ರು ಾ&ೆ), ರವರು ಕಂ_ಾಯ $ಾಗದ ?ಾಯAVವA ]ರು ಾ&ೆ.
`ೕಲSಂಡ ವರ,ಯನು[ ತಮ’ೆ ಸ ಸು ಾ ಈ ಅಕ+ಮ?ೆS ?ಾರಣ&ಾ.ರುವವರ `ೕ ೆ ಅಗತ ಕ+ಮ
ಜರು.ಸಲು 4ಾಗೂ ಅಕ+ಮ ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ ರದು>ಪ8ಸಲು ತಮŽ ಆ_ೇಶ ?ೋO ಸ ]_ೆ
32ಈ ಪತ+ದ oೊ ೆ’ೆ ದೂರು_ಾರರ ದೂOನ ಪ+ , ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.11, 12, 13 ರ ಪಹ) ಪ+ ಗಳu
ತಹ]ೕ ಾ>R ರವರು Vೕ8ರುವ ಂಬರಹ, `ೕ ೆ E]ರುವ ಪಂ5ಾ% ಪTಸಕದ ಾ ೆ _ಾಖ ]ರುವ
ಪ+ , ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಪTಸಕಗಳ ಾ ೆ _ಾಖ ]ರುವ ಪ+ ಗಳu ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ V ಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾರ
ಸಂಘ pಡುಗ7ೆ ಾ8ರುವ ೇಔ~ ನ*ೆಯ ಪ+ 4ಾಗೂ ಮೂಲ ಾ ೕಕರು ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ
V ಾAಣ ಸಂಘ?ೆS V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ಾ&ಾಟ ಾಡಲು Vೕ8ರುವ nಾ ಾನ ಅ2?ಾರ ಪತ+ದ oೆ&ಾb‹
ಪ+ ಗಳನು[ ಲಗ ]_ೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒ ಂ,’ೆ,
ತಮŽ ಾ€]¸À»/-
Gೌ&ಾಯುಕರು,
ನಗರಸ$ೆ,(ಂ ಾಮ)”
(sic)
The Deputy Director of Land Records then along with the Tahsildar
conducted a detailed survey of Sy.No.11, 12 and 13 and opined
that Sy.No.11, Government ‘B’ kharab land is illegally encroached,
layout is formed and houses are constructed after sale of sites in
the said property. The finding is as follows:
“ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಸ?ಾAರ
r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ಾಂ +ಕ ಸ4ಾಯಕರು 4ಾಗು ಪದVZತ ಭೂ_ಾಖ ೆಗಳ
ಉಪV_ೇAಶಕರು, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ r ೆ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ.
£ÀA.f.vÁA.¸À.¨sÀÆ.G.¤.59/15-16 , ಾಂಕ:22-04-2015
ರವO’ೆ,ಾನ r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ r ೆ,
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ.
33
ಾನ &ೆ,
ಷಯ:- (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಸƒಳತV ಾ ವರ, ಸ ಸುವ ಬ’ೆP.ಉ ೇಖ:-1.=+ೕ ಆR.&ೋಷN aೇ•, ಮೂಲ nೌಲಭ ಅ’ವೃ,c, \ಾ ಾA ಮತು
nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA 4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು ರವರ ಕ…ೇO fಪ•)
¸ÀA.ªÀÄÄ.ªÁºÀ.¸À.676/2014, ¢:11/02/2015.
~~**~~
ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂ ೆ ಉ ೇ”ತ ಾನ ಉಸು\ಾO ಸ(ವರ ಕ…ೇO fಪ•)
ಆ_ೇಶದಂ ೆ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಾ8 ವರ\ಾದ ವರ,ಯನು[ ಸ ಸಲು ಸೂ(]ರುವಂ ೆ
, ಾಂಕ:25/02/2015 ರಂದು ಉಪ $ಾ’ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu 4ಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಾಲೂಕು ತಹ]ೕ ಾ>R
ರವರ ಮತು ಕಂ_ಾಯ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ ]ಬ•ಂ,-ಂ,’ೆ ಪ+nಾˆತ ಪ+ಕರಣದ aಾ§ÄÛ ಸƒಳತV ೆಯನು[
VವA ಸ ಾ%ತು.
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಆ?ಾರಬಂ,ನಂ ೆ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಇದು>, ‘p’ ಖ&ಾpನ _ಾಖ ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ.
ಹಕುS_ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಉಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಗ8ಗಳನು[
ಮೂಲ ಸ\ೆA _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಆ”ಾರದ `ೕ ೆ ಅಳ ೆ ಾ8 ಪO=ೕ ಸುವ ?ಾಲದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ¸ÉÌÃl
ನಂಬR fಪ•) ಆ.ದು>, ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•) aಾ§ÄÛ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ಾ8 fಪ•)ಯನು[
ತ@ಾOಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಾಲೂಕು ಭೂ ಾಪನ ಾ ೆ, ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕO’ೆ ಸೂ(]ದಂ ೆ
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಅಡ ಯಂ ೆ ಮತು ಮೂಲ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ ೆ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕ ] ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR
fಪ•)ಯನು[ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ’ಾ. ಪ+nಾವ ೆ ಸ ]ದು>, ಅದರಂ ೆ , ಾಂಕ:08/04/2015 ರಂದು
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯನು[ ಅನು ೕ,]ರುತ_ೆ. ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯಂ ೆ
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ಬದ ಾವdೆ@ಾ. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಆ?ಾರಬಂದು
ಅನು ೕದ ೆ@ಾ. ಮೂಲ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಇಂ8ೕಕರಣ\ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ.
Oೕ.ಸ
Oೕ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.11
ನಂ ರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) fಪ•) aಾ§ÄÛ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ \ೇŠೆ ಅಳ ೆ ಾ8
ಗ8ಗಳನು[ Vಗ2ಪ8] ಸƒಳದ ಗು A]ರುತ_ೆ.
A]ರುತ_ೆ Oೕ.ಸ
Oೕ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.11
ನಂ ರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ನಂತರ
ನಮೂ_ಾ.ರುವ 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ]ೕಣAವನು[ ಸƒಳದ ಗು A]ರುವಂ ೆ ಪ•&ಾ ನಂಬRನ
ನಂಬRನ ಸ•ಮ
Gಾ+2?ಾರದ
Gಾ+2?ಾರದ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಾ8 nೈಟುಗಳನು[ VZA]ರುವTದು ಸƒಳತV ೆ \ೇŠೆ
ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ.
ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಅಲ_ೆ ನ*ೆಯ ೋO]ರುವಂ ೆ 5 ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.11
ನಂ ರ VZA]ರುವTದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ.
ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಲಭ ರುವ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಪ+?ಾರ Oೕ.ಸ
Oೕ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.11
ನಂ ರ ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ. ಾ8ರುವ
ೇಔ~ GಾN
GಾN _ಾಖ ೆ ಆ"ಾರದ `ೕ ೆ Oೕ.ಸ
Oೕ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.11
ನಂ ರ ಾ8ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಜZೕVನ
34
]ƒ ಯಂ ೆ ಮತು GಾNನ
GಾNನ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ತ@ಾO] ನಮೂ,]_ೆ.
ನಮೂ,]_ೆ Oೕ.ಸ
Oೕ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.11
ನಂ ರ ಾಗು ದžಣದ ಕ7ೆ
Oೕ.ಸ
Oೕ ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.12,
ನಂ 13 ಸಹ ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ.ದು>, ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬRಗಳu
ನಂಬRಗಳu ಡುವE ನಂಬR
ಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ.
ಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ `ೕಲSಂಡ ಾ ಯನು[ ಈ ಪತ+_ೊಂ,'ೆ ಲಗ fgರುವ ನ*ೆಯ ಗು A] ತಮŽ
ಅವ'ಾಹ ೆ'ೆ ಸ ]_ೆ."
]_ೆ
(Emphasis added at each instance)
Sketch is appended to the report. It is then the Deputy
Commissioner informs the District in-charge Minister with regard to
the encroachment of Sy.No.11 and directs the Assistant
Commissioner to remove the encroachment from the said area. The
communications read as follows:
35
“£ÀA.f.vÁA.¸À.¨sÀÆ.G.¤.59/15-16 , ಾಂಕ: 29-04-2015
ರವO’ೆ,
ಸ ಾŽನ ಆR.&ೋಷN aೇ•,
ಮೂಲ nೌಲಭ ಅ’ವೃ,c,
\ಾ ಾA ಮತು nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA
4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು,
ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಸ?ಾAರ.
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
ಸ ಾŽನ &ೆ,
ಷಯ:- (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಸƒಳತV ಾ ವರ, ಸ ಸುವ ಬ’ೆP.ಉ ೇಖ:- ತಮŽ ಕ…ೇOಯ fಪ•) ಸಂ:ಮು.\ಾ.ಹ.ಸ.676/2014,
,:11/02/2015.
~~**~~
ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂ ೆ ಉ ೇ”ತ ತಮŽ ಕ…ೇOಯ fಪ•) ಆ_ೇಶದಂ ೆ (ಂ ಾಮ)
ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[
ಖ&ಾಬು oಾಗವನು[ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವ ಕುOತು ಕ+ಮ?ೈ’ೊಳ‚ಲು
ಸೂ(]ರುವಂ ೆ ಈ ಬ’ೆP ಸƒಳತV ೆ ನ7ೆ] ವರ\ಾದ ವರ,ಯನು[ ಸ ಸಲು ಭೂ_ಾಖ ೆಗಳ
ಉಪV_ೇAಶಕರು ಮತು ಉಪ $ಾ’ಾ2?ಾOಗE’ೆ ಸೂ(ಸ ಾ.ತು. ಅದರಂ ೆ , ಾಂಕ:25/02/2015
ರಂದು ಸƒಳತV ೆ ನ7ೆ] ವರ,ಯನು[ ಸ ]ರು ಾ&ೆ. ಸದOಯರು ಸ ಸುವ ವರ,ಯಂ ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11
ಆ?ಾರಬಂ,ನಂ ೆ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಇದು>, ‘p’ ಖ&ಾpನ _ಾಖ ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಹಕುS_ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ ೆ
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಗ8ಗಳನು[ ಮೂಲ ಸ\ೆA _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ
ಆ”ಾರದ `ೕ ೆ ಅಳ ೆ ಾ8 ಪO=ೕ ಸುವ ?ಾಲದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•) ಆ.ದು>,
¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•) ¨Á§ÄÛ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ಾ8 fಪ•)ಯನು[ ತ@ಾOಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg
ಾಲೂಕು ಭೂ ಾಪನ ಾ ೆ, ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕO’ೆ ಸೂ(]ದಂ ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಅಡ ಯಂ ೆ ಮತು
ಮೂಲ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ ೆ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕ ] ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯನು[ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ’ಾ. ಪ+nಾವ ೆ
ಸ ]ದು>, ಅದರಂ ೆ , ಾಂಕ:08/04/2015 ರಂದು Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯನು[
ಅನು ೕ,]ರುತ_ೆ. ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•dೆಯಂ ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ
36ಬದ ಾವdೆ@ಾ. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಆ?ಾರಬಂದು ಅನು ೕದ ೆ@ಾ. ಮೂಲ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ
ಇಂ8ೕಕರಣ\ಾ.ರುತ_ೆಂದು ತಮŽ ವರ,ಯ E]ರು ಾ&ೆ.
ಭೂ_ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಉಪV_ೇAಶಕರ ಮತು ಉಪ $ಾ’ಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ವರ,ಯಂ ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11
ರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) fಪ•) ¨Á§ÄÛ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ \ೇŠೆ ಅಳ ೆ ಾ8 ಗ8ಗಳನು[ Vಗ2ಪ8] ಸƒಳದ
ಗು A]ದು>, Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ನಂತರ ನಮೂ_ಾ.ರುವ 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ]ೕಣAವನು[
ಸƒಳದ ಗು A]ರುವಂ ೆ ಪ•&ಾ ನಂಬRನ ಸ•ಮ Gಾ+2?ಾರದ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ
ಾ8 nೈಟುಗಳನು[ VZA]ರುವTದು ಸƒಳತV ೆ \ೇŠೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಅಲ_ೆ ನ*ೆಯ
ೋO]ರುವಂ ೆ 5 ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ VZA]ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಲಭ ರುವ
_ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಪ+?ಾರ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ. ಾ8ರುವ ೇಔ~ GಾN _ಾಖ ೆ ಆ”ಾರದ
`ೕ ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಾ8ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಜZೕVನ ]ƒ ಯಂ ೆ ಮತು GಾNನ ನ*ೆಯನು[
ತ@ಾO] ನಮೂ,]_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಾಗು ದžಣದ ಕ7ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.12, 13 ಸಹ
ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ.ದು>, ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬRಗಳu ಡುವE ನಂಬRಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ‘p’
ಖ&ಾaಾ.ದು>, ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಇದು ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕ ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ಜZೕVನ
ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ Vಯಮaಾ ರ\ಾ. ಬ7ಾವdೆ
ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ ೆರವT’ೊEಸುವ ಬ’ೆP ಕ+ಮ?ೈ’ೊಳ‚ ಾಗುವTದು ಇದ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg
ಾ ಯನು[ ಒಳ’ೊಂಡ ನ*ೆ ಮತು ವರ,ಯನು[ ತಮŽ ಅವ’ಾಹ ೆ’ೆ ಸ ]_ೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒ ಂ,'ೆ,
ತಮŽ ಾ€]
ಸ /-
r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ r ೆ."
..... ..... ......
"£ÀA.f.vÁA.¸À.¨sÀÆ.G.¤.59/15-16 , ಾಂಕ: 29-04-2015
ರವO'ೆ,
ಉಪ $ಾ'ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu,
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ ಉಪ $ಾಗ,
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ.
ಾನ &ೆ,
37
ಷಯ:- (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾpನ
ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ ೆರವT'ೊEಸುವ
ಬ'ೆP.
ಉ ೇಖ:- =+ೕ ಆR.&ೋಷN aೇ•, ಮೂಲ nೌಲಭ ಅ’ವೃ,c, \ಾ ಾA ಮತು
nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA 4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು ರವರ ಕ…ೇO fಪ•)
¸ÀA.ªÀÄÄ.ªÁºÀ.¸À.676/2014, ,:11/02/2015.
ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂ ೆ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ
Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು oಾಗವನು[ (ಶಂಕು ೕr) fಪ•) ನಂತರ
]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ) ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ ?ಾನೂನು ಪ+?ಾರ ತV ೆ
ಾ8 4ೊರದೂಡಲು ಉ¯ÉèÔvÀ ಾನ ಸ(ವರು, ಸೂ(]ದ>ರ `ೕ&ೆ’ೆ ಸƒಳತV ೆ ನ7ೆ] ವರ\ಾದ
ವರ, ಮತು ನ*ೆಯನು[ ತ@ಾO] ಸ ಸಲು E]ರುವTದು ಸ€ಯಂ\ೇದ \ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಪ+ಕರಣದ
ಸƒಳತV ೆ ನ7ೆ], Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಸ•ಮ Gಾ+2?ಾರದ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ
ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಾ8 nೈಟುಗಳನು[ VZA] ಇದರ 5 ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಮತು 1 ರ ಮ ೆಕಟgಲು ಅ8Gಾಯ
4ಾIರುವT_ಾ. ವರ,ಯ ಅನು ೕ,]ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಸ\ೆA _ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂತ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ
ಇದು>, ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR ನಂತರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) fಪ•) ಾಡು\ಾಗ 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ]ೕಣA?ೆS
ಬದ ಾವdೆ@ಾ. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಆ?ಾರಬಂದು ದುರ]@ಾ. ಹಕುS_ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಈ ನಂಬR ಹುಲುಬV[
ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುವTದOಂದ ಇದು ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS nೇOದ ಸ€ ಾ.ದು>, ಇದರ ಸಂರ•dೆ ಾಡುವ ಸಲು\ಾ. ಈ
ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬRನ ವರ, ಮತು ನ*ೆಯ E]ರುವಂ ೆ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. VZA]ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[
ಮತು ಇದರ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. VZA]ರುವ ಕಟgಡಗಳನು[ ೆರವT’ೊEಸುವ ಬ’ೆP VೕವT ಸದO
ಜZೕನನು[ ಸ?ಾAರದ ವಶ?ೆS ಪ7ೆದು ಕೂಡ ೇ ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನನು[ ಸಂರžಸಲು ಇದರ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ.
ೆ ೆವ•Oರುವವರನು[ ೆರವT’ೊE] ಈ ಆ]ಯನು[ ಸ?ಾAರದ ವಶ?ೆS ಪ7ೆಯಲು V@ಾ ಾನುnಾರ
?ಾನೂನು ಕ+ಮಗಳನು[ ?ೈ’ೊಂಡು ವರ, ಸ ಸಲು ಸೂ(]_ೆ.
ತಮŽ ಾ€]
ಸ /-
r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu
(ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ r ೆ."
38
A notice then comes to be issued by the Tahsildar to accused No.1
and his sons directing removal of encroachment and illegal
construction. The notice reads as follows:
“¸ÀASÉå:/NCR/CR/01/2015-168 , ಾಂಕ: 25-07-2015
ೋfೕ|
ಷಯ:-(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ
ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನನು[ ದುರುಪ-ೕಗ ಪ8]?ೊಂಡು ಅಕ+ಮ ಾ ೆಗಳನು[
ಾ8ರುವ 5ಾರ.
ಉ ೇಖ:-1.=+ೕ ಆR &ೋಷN aೇ•, ಮೂಲnೌಲಭ ಅ’ವೃ,c, \ಾ ಾA ಮತು
nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA 4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು ಇವರ PÀZÉÃj n¥ÀàtÂ
¸ÀA:ªÀÄÄ.ªÁ.¸.676/2014 ¢:11.2.2015.
2.Gೌ&ಾಯುಕರು, ನಗರ ಸ$ೆ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಇವರ ಪvÀæ
¸ÀASÉå:£À¸Àa/¹§âA¢/¹Dgï/2014-15 ¢:9.3.2015
3. r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu. (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರr ೆ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ ಇವರ ಪತ+
¸ÀASÉå:f£ÀPÉÆÃ/a¹(1)-125/2015-16 ¢:19-05-2015
4. r ಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ಾಂ +ಕ ಸ4ಾಯಕರು 4ಾಗೂ ಪದVZತ
ಭೂ_ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಉಪ V_ೇAಶಕರು – (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ r ೆ (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ
ಇವರ ಪತ+ಸಂ ೆ :r. ಾಂ.ಸಭೂಉV.59/2015-16 ¢:22.04.2015
*****`ೕಲSಂಡ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ,]ದಂ ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ಉ ೇಖ (3) ಪತ+ದ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು
ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.12 ಮತು ಸ.ನಂ.13 ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕVನ
ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳ ೆಯ V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಂಗ8] ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಆ] ೆO’ೆ OrಸgRನ ಾ ೆ
_ಾಖ ]ರುವT_ಾ. ಸದOಭೂZಯ ಮೂಲ ಾ ೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ5ೌಡ&ೆ89 pN ಆಂಜ ೇಯ&ೆ89 ಮತು
=+ೕ ಎಂ.] aಾ ಾr pN 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಇವರು (ನ[ಸಂದ+ ಪಂ5ಾ% ಯ 4ೌ| |g ಪTಸಕ ಆಧO] ಒಟುg
ಭೂZಯ \ಾ ˆ’ೆ ಾ ೆಯನು[ ಪ7ೆದಂ ೆ ನಗರ ಸ$ೆ _ಾಖ ೆಗಳ _ಾಖ ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ.
ಉ ೇಖ(2) ಮತು (4) ರ£Àéಯ |ಥಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಾ8_ಾಗ ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.12
ಮತು ಸ.ನಂ.13?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂಡಂ ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.11ರ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz
39ಇರುವTದು ಮತು ಅದನು[ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. nೇO]?ೊಂಡು V\ೇಶನ ಂಗ8] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು
ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕVನ ಈ ?ೆಳಕಂಡವರು ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ದು> ಸದO ರವರ
ಒತುವOಯನು[ ೆರವT’ೊEಸಲು ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ_ಾಯ ಅ2Vಯಮ 1964 ರ ಪ+ಕರಣ 94 ಮತು 104
Oೕ ಾ F ೋfೕ| Vೕಡ ಾಗು ದು> VೕವT ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನು ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO
ಾ8?ೊಂಡು V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಂಗ8] ಬ7ಾವdೆ VZA] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವ VಮŽ ರು†ಧ
ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ_ಾಯ ?ಾ„> ಕಲಂ 192(ಎ) ರಂ ೆ ಏಳu ,ನ_ೊಳ’ಾ. V\ೇಶನ/ ಕಟgಡಗಳನು[
ೆರವT’ೊEಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂ(]_ೆ. ತˆ•ದ Vಯ ಾನುnಾರ ಕ+ಮ?ೈ’ೊಳ‚ ಾಗುವTದು.
ಸ /-
ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>R
(ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು.”
18. This order comes to be challenged before the coordinate
bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.32702 -32703 of 2015. This
comes to be disposed by the following order:
“Having heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners and perused the notices of even date
25.07.2015 of the Tahsildar, impugned, directing removal of
construction on the ‘Hullubanni Kharab’ belonging to the State
Government, indisputably, when not preceded by a notice
and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
tantamounting to violation of principles of natural justice,
cannot be sustained. Sri H.Venkatesh Dodderi, learned
Government Advocate, fairly submits that in the absence
of prior notice and an opportunity of hearing, notice
impugned could be read down as a show cause notice
entitling petitioners to submit their explanations and an
opportunity of hearing before the Tahsildar.
2. Recording the submission of learned counsel, the
notices impugned are read down as show cause notices
entitling petitioners to file their explanations and an
opportunity of hearing where afterwards the third
40Respondent to pass orders in accordance with law.
Petitions are ordered accordingly.”
Opportunity of hearing was directed to be granted to the petitioners
therein. Thereafter a notice comes to be issued on 14-10-2015 to
which a reply is submitted by accused No.1 and his son M.C. Balaji.
The reply reads as follows:
“FROM:
1. Sri. Chowdareddy
S/o late M.C. Anjaneya Reddy
Malapalli extension,
Chintamani.
2. Sri.M.C.Balaji
s/o Sri. Chowdareddy
Malapalli extension,
ChintamaniDate:06/11/2015
To
The Tahsildar
Chintamani taluk
Chintamani.
Sir,
This is with reference to Your office notice bearing No.
ncr/CR/68/2015-16 dated 14/10/2015. As informed earlier the
above said notice was received by me on evening of 21/10/2015
and therefore, I had sent a request letter dated 27/10/2015
seeking extension of time to reply your said notice.
My reply to your above said notice is as under:
41
a. You have referred to your office notice dated 25/07/2014
in your latest notice. As you are aware, My son M.C Balaji
and myself had filed a writ petition challenging the said
notice in W.P. No.32702 and 32703 of 2015 before the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon’ble High
Court by its order dated 5/8/2015 directed you to seek
our explanations and opportunity of hearing before
passing any order. [Copy of this order is enclosed
herewith.] as directed the Hon’ble High Court we had sent
a detail reply on 17/08/2015 showing cause against the
notice dated 25/07/2015. The same was received by your
office on 17/08/2015. However, it is surprising your
present notice do not make a mention of our reply at all.
b. In the said reply we had requested to give an opportunity
in proof of what is stated in the said reply. Please let us
know if any orders are passed on our reply dated
17/8/2015 as no opportunity is given to us after reply is
sent to you.
c. This reply may kindly read as part and parcel of our
earlier reply dated 17/08/2015. As contended in the
earlier reply, the disputed land bearing sy No. 11 of
Kannampalli village measuring 1 acre 19 guntas and out
of which 35 guntas had been in continuous peaceful and
possession and enjoyment of my father Sri. M.C.
Anjaneya Reddy. Sri M.C.Anjaneya reddy is my father and
grand father of Balaji. Sri. M.C. Anjaneya Reddy occupied
the said land to an extent of 35 guntas [which is referred
to herein after as the said land] had following boundaries.
EAST: Formerly S.No 45 [now lay out govt housing
co-operative society.
WEST: S.No 10 of Narayana Rao and now private layout
NORTH: Channel in sy no. 11 and remaining area of S. no
11 and S.No 9SOUTH; S.No 12 and 13
42d. Sri. M.C.Anjaneya reddy occupied the land in
question on the Shankaranthi day of 1950 with a
view to acquire title over the said land by adverse
possession. On that day, he openly asserted his
hostile intention to dispossess the Government of
the said land and occupied the said land to the
knowledge of the government as well as the entire
world openly. As could be appreciated, eastern
boundary of the disputed land is S. No. 45 and Sy
No. 12 formed southern boundary to said disputed
Sy No. 11. Both lands in Sy. No. 45 and 12 of
Malappally belonged to our joint family. Therefore,
these two lands were abutting to the said land in Sy
No. 11. The contours and the topography of Sy No.
11 was such that it was ideally suited for becoming
part of Sy No. 45 and 12. The Sy No. 45 and 12
were slopping northwards towards. Sy No. 11.
Therefore M.C.Anjaneya reddy occupied the land in
Sy No. 11 to an extent of 35 guntas and cultivated
the land and became part and parcel of the other
two lands. There were no ridges bifurcating the said
survey numbers. The existing ridges were removed
at the time of said occupation. Ever since
Shankranthi day of 1950 our family had been
growing dry crops in the said land. Our cousin
brother Sri. Narayana Reddy s/o Munishamy Reddy
purchased Sy No. 13 which also formed southern
boundary to the disputed land. Thus, Sri. M.C.
Anjaneya Reddy openly, peacefully and continuous
without any interruption or disturbance from any
person including the government authorities
asserted hostile animus and title against the
government to their knowledge and notice. The said
land is very close to Chinthamani town. Thus, he
became absolute owner of the disputed Sy No. 11
by way of adverse possession. In fact, various
partition deeds executed amongst the family
members described the boundary of Sy No. 13 as
channel in Sy No. 11. Thus, Anjaneya Reddy had
become owner of Sy No. 45, 11, 12, and 13. After
the death of Anjaneya reddy his grand sons namely,
M.C. Balaji, M.C. Sudhakar and I partitioned all our
joint family properties under registered partition
43
deed. Under schedule ‘B’ the land bearing Sy No. 13
including Sy No. 11 is allotted to the share of Sri.
M.C.Balaji. Thus said land has been in uninterrupted
possession and enjoyment of our family till date.
e. The entire case stands on the survey allege to have been
done between 13/2/2015 and 19/2/2016. The alleged
survey is done with out notice to us and behind our pack.
The report of the said survey do not bind us. The survey
is —- and illegal and therefore no actions can be taken
based on the said report your notice solely founded on
the said materials. Which are collected in an illegal
manner. All those action are against natural justice.
f. It may be pertinent to note that my son Balaji and I
executed a General Power of Attorney dated 6/12/2013 in
favour of Sri. B. Anjaneya Reddy and V. Nagaraj
President and Secretary of Sarakari Nowkarara Gruha
Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha authorizing them to
sell the sites to its members. Accordingly, the society has
sold 99 sites to various purchasers who have taken
delivery of possession and are in lawful possession of the
same. Many of them have constructed their residential
houses.
g. There is absolutely no any crimal intention on our part to
have executed a power of attorney. Since, we had
become owners by adverse possession, we had legal right
to convey the same. Therefore, the intended criminal
action under Section 192[a] of Karnataka Land Revenue
Act cannot be invoked as under the colour of the
ownership the property is sold. Unless the government
makes out that we have not acquired ownership or title to
the property in question by way of adverse possession,
then only the government initiate action. Therefore, the
matter is essentially a civil dispute and therefore, it does
not invite any acion under Section 192[a] of the Act.
h. The impugned notice is arbitrary, illegal and
unsustainable in the eye of Law. The impugned notice do
not indicate the basis on which the proposed action is
contemplated. The impugned notices have been issued at
the instance of persons who are politically motivated and
44
inimical towards us. We are targeted as we belong to rival
political party. The intended action is actuated by malice
and malafides.
i. Inspite of this reply, if you require, we are prepared to
present the necessary evidence in proof of our claim in
proper forum. Therefore we request you to drop the
intending action in order to meet the ends of justice, and
circumstances.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
[Chowda Reddy]”
(sic)
When reply came from accused No.1 and his son, the
defence adopted is of considerable significance. The denial
of possession disappeared. Instead came a plea of adverse
possession.That plea, by its very architecture, carries an
implicit admission. A person claiming adverse possession
does not say, “I do not possess.” He says, “I possess, and
though the land belongs to another, my possession has
matured into title.” Thus, the defence itself tacitly
acknowledges possession over Government land.
45
19. Thereafter came the complaint before the Anti-
Corruption Bureau, alleging systematic land grabbing by
accused No.1 and his family. Preliminary enquiry culminated
in registration of Crime No.4 of 2017. The sketch appended
to the complaint again reveals the startling picture–37 sites
formed over land that prima facie belonged to the State, all
from the hands of accused No.1/Chowdareddy and his sons
M.C. Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar. The complaint reads as follows:
“From:
Mr. R. Venkataramana,
S/o late Laxminarayanappa,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o Sonnasetty Halli,
2nd Main, Chintamani.
To.
The Station House Officer,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore-560001.
Sir,
Sub: Complaint of Criminal Conspiracy between Mr. Chowda
Reddy, Mr. M.C.Balaji, Mr. M.C.Sudhakar, (all are residents of
R/o Malapalli Layout, Chintamani), the then Commissioner of
City Municipal Council, Chintamani, Sub-Registrar and other
public servants.
46
With reference to the above subject, I am herewith submit the
facts hereunder as follows:
1. I am basically a social worker. Over a period of time, the
area of my service has increased manifold and the people whose
grievances were duly addressed and redressed at all level have
went to an extent of electing me as a member of local
Municipality. In the capacity of member of the Municipality, I
came across lot of malpractices in the administration system. It
was noticed that, the malpractices are either at the intervention
of higher bureaucrats or the elected representatives to the
various levels. Since the beneficiaries of welfare scheme of the
government are actually not getting the benefits as a result of
rampant corruption, I have decided to expose all those
bureaucrats and the politicians who are instrumental in denying
the benefits to the beneficiaries. During my quest for eradication
of the corruption in whatever mode and in whatever stage in the
society, I came across the involvement of people who have been
voted to power by the people of this state. The people involved
have not only abused their office in practicing the corrupt act
but also coated the rules and regulations, exchanged the
monitory benefits in a clandestine manner, benefited
themselves and in the process derailed faith reposed by the
people. It is the persons who are expected to be a role model
for the people, mouthpiece of the people and the guardians of
the people conveniently floated and breached the rules in
getting themselves unlawfully enriched. Even the government
officers have extended their hands in helping the elected people
to abuse their office and in other words, the government
servants have also abused their office by not following the rules
and regulation only with an intention to please the people who
are powerful in the political circle.
2. The commission and omission of aforesaid bureaucrats
and the politicians are punishable under the various statutes
including the Prevention of Corruption Act. The people involved
are very influential politicians. Hence, certain departments are
not furnishing the details of the entire transaction. However, I
have produced most of the material documents which prima
facie implicates the aforesaid persons. In-depth investigation
will expose all other incriminating circumstances against those
persons which I may not able to do so in his individual capacity.
47
3. It is submitted that, one Mr. Chowda Reddy has been
elected as a Member of Legislation Assembly from Chintamani
constituency on many occasions. He was last holding the office
of the MLA for the period between 1999 to 2004. His son by
name M.C.Sudhakar was also elected as a MLA from Chintamani
constituency on 2 occasions from 2004 to 2013. On account of
their long stint as a Member of Legislative Assembly, they have
developed their own clout in the bureaucratic level. Out of their
political and economic power, they have not only flouted the
rules and regulations but also made the public servants to act in
tandem with them and in the process, the aforesaid public
servants and other public servants have caused huge loss to the
government and corresponding gain for themselves.
4. Mr. M.C.Balaji and Mr. M.C.Sudhakar are the sons of Mr.
Chowda Reddy. They have played active roles in the illegal act
committed by their father and other public servants. They are
the part of the conspiracy hatched by Mr. Chowda Reddy and
other public servants.
5. Property bearing Sy No.11 in all measuring 1 acres 19
guntas of land of Kannampalli Village, Chintamani Taluk is a
Government Kharab land. The said land has been shown as
government. Hullubanni Kharab in the revenue records. Copy of
the RTC and mutation extract evidencing the aforesaid fact are
produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A and A1
respectively.
6. The adjacent lands bearing Sy No. 12 measuring 1 acres
21 guntas and Sy No.13 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas are
standing in the name of Mr. Chowda Reddy and M.C.Balaji
respectively and both these lands were converted in to non
agricultural purpose. The RTCs of these 2 lands evidencing their
ownership over the same are produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-B & B1 respectively.
7. The aforesaid father and his 2 sons without obtaining the
necessary permission and sanction from the competent
authority have illegally formed a residential layout and in the
process made use of even the adjacent government land
measuring 1 acre 19 guntas for formation of the layout.
48
8. By making use of their personal properties as well as
aforesaid government land, the aforesaid father and his 2 sons
have formed in all 106 sites of different dimension as per their
own plan and formed another 5 sites which do not find place in
their own plan. Copy of the plan prepared by them are produced
herewith and marked as Annexure-C.
9. Having done the aforesaid act and deeds, Mr. Chowda
Reddy and his 2 sons have managed to get the katha from the
Municipal Corporation even in the absence of approved plan
from the planning authority. The public servants who were
working during the relevant point of time in the office of
Municipal Corporation have issued the katha without exercising
their statutory duties in order to favour Mr. Chowda Reddy and
his 2 sons with an intention to make corresponding gain for
themselves. Copy of the katha issued to Mr. Chowda Reddy and
Mr. M.C.Balaji are produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-D and D1.
10. In furtherance of the same, Mr. Chowda Reddy and his
sons have entered in to a registered partition deed dated
23/12/2000 and in the partition deed, sites Nos. 10, 13, 16, 43,
46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 73, 103, 106 and other sites were allotted to
Mr. Chowda Reddy. Site Nos. 11, 14, 17, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53,
56, 59, 71, 104, and other sites were allotted to the share of
Mr. M.C.Balaji. Similarly sites Nos.9, 12, 15, 18, 36, 39, 42, 45,
48, 51, 54, 57 along with other sites were allotted to Mr.
M.C.Sudhakar. The recitals have been written as if the partition
has been effected in respect of Sy Nos. 12 and 13 of
Kannampalli Village. Copy of the partition deed is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure-E.
11. In furtherance of the same, Mr. Chowda Reddy and Mr.
Balaji have sold the aforesaid sites to the members of
Government Employees Association through their PA holder, i, e
one Mr. V.Nagaraj, Secretary, Karnataka Government
Employees House Building Co-Operative Society. Copy of the
GPA is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-F. The
recitals in the GPA as well as the sale deeds strangely states
that, all those sites are exclusively belonging to only to Mr.
Chowda Reddy and Mr. Balaji. It is interesting to note in the said
GPA that, the sites are shown to have formed only in Sy No.12
49and 13. Some of the sale deeds are produced herewith and
marked as Annexure-G, G1 to G7 respectively.
12. I being a member of local Municipal Corporation, having
come across the aforesaid illegal act, vide my complaint dated
02/02/2015 brought to the notice of the Municipal Corporation
regarding the illegal act committed by Mr. Chowda Reddy and
others. Even the Deputy Commissioner who has come across
the aforesaid illegal act appears to have directed the Thasildar
to conduct the spot inspection and prepare the sketch of the
entire land in which the layout has been formed. Based on the
said direction, the process of survey was conducted and sketch
was prepared indicating the formation of about 35 sites in Sy
No.11 which belongs to the government. Copy of the sketch
evidencing the said aspect is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-H.
13. It is relevant to mention here itself that, the District in-
charge Minister having come across the illegality, vide his office
letter dated 11/02/2015 directed the Thasildar of Chintamani
Taluk, Assistant Commisisoner of Chikkabhallapura Sub-Division
and Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and in-
charge Deputy Director of Land Records to carry out the spot
inspection and make a enquiry in to the illegality. The said 3
officials took up the spot inspection and thereafter sent their
report to the Deputy Commissioner on 22/04/2015 with their
observation that, land bearing Sy No.11 measuring 1 acre 19
guntas is a ‘B’ Kharab land and sites have been formed on the
said land without the plan sanction and 5 number of residence
have come up in the said land. Copy of the said report is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure-J.
14. In the meanwhile, based on my complaint, the officials of
the Municipal Corporation has made a spot inspection and only
after being convinced with the allegations made by me,
addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner on 09/03/2015
confirming the encroachment of the government land, formation
of the layout, obtaining the katha in respect of those sites and
disposing of the sites to the third parties and requested the
Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action in the matter.
Copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-K.
50
15. On the basis of the said report, the Deputy Commissioner
vide his communication dated 29/04/2015 directed the Assistant
Commissioner to take steps to remove the encroachment. Copy
of the said communication is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-L.
16. It is submitted that, in furtherance of the above narrated
sequence of developments, the jurisdictional Thasildar appears
to have taken out a notice 25/07/2015 against Mr. Chowda
Reddy and Balaji requiring them to forthwith remove the
constructions put up in the government land. The said persons
being aggrieved by the said notice, approached the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.32702-703/2015. The Hon’ble
High Court vide its order dated 05/08/2015 disposed the matter
with a direction to the Thasildar to offer an opportunity to Mr.
Chowda Reddy and Balaji to have their say in the matter before
taking the final decision. Copy of the order of the Hon’ble High
Court is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-M.
17. In furtherance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the
jurisdictional Thasildar vide notice dated 14/10/2015 called
upon them to offer their explanation. In response to the said
notice, Mr. Chowda Reddy has submitted his reply but
interestingly not denied the factum of forming the layout in the
government land. The only defense taken by him is that, he has
perfected his title over the government land. The tone and
tenure of the reply is the conclusive proof of formation of the
layout over the government land, formation of the layout
without approved plan, obtaining the katha of the site formed in
the government land and disposing of the sites formed on the
government land without authority. Copy of the show cause
notice as well as reply given by Mr. Chowda Reddy are produced
herewith and marked as Annexure-N & N1 respectively.
18. In the meantime, the illegal acts committed by the
aforesaid father and sons with active connivance with the public
servants and other private persons, appeared in print media.
Mr. Chowda Reddy in response to the said report of the print
media, addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner
04/02/2015 stating that, he has not intentionally formed a
layout in the government land and by stating so, he has
categorically admitted the factum of encroachment and
formation of the layout on the land belonging to the government
51
and subjected the sites formed on the said land for sale to the
various persons. Copy of the letter of the 1st accused is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure-P.
19. In order to control corruption and nepotism in public life
by the public servants, a comprehensive enactment was brought
by the parliament to check the political and economic power
gained by illegal means. Of late, the bribery and corruption by
public servants has enormously increased on account of men in
power indulging in corrupt practice for amassing wealth for
them and for their kin and kith. To curb such corrupt practices,
the prevention of corruption act was enacted by the parliament
to enable the authorities to take socially useful measures
conceived in public interest and it should be liberally construed
so as to bring about the desired object i.e., to prevent
corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of
the honest among them. The Act also encompasses the cased of
direct benefit obtained by a public servant for himself or for
himself or for any other person from a third party in the manner
described therein. The act was brought to purify the public
administration. A new offence of misconduct has been created
relating to public servants and has an effect on such public
servants. In view of the addition made in definition of “Public
Servants” any person who holds an office by virtue of which he
is authorised or required to perform any public duty will come
within the ambit of the definition of public servant. Section 2
(viii) (b) (c) defines public servant under the latest Act.
20. Hence, Mr. Chowda Reddy, Balaji, Sudhakar and officials
of Town Municipal Council, Sub-Registrar and other public
servants have committed the overt act of mis-conduct so as to
attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 34 and
120(B) of Indian Penal Code by adopting illegal methods and
connived with each others for pecuniary advantage by abusing
their official position while holding the office of the public
servants without there being any public interest.
Hence, I request your good office to kindly register a case
against concerned Government Servants and also Private
person/s and other persons who are directly or indirectly
involved in commission of the various offences under Prevention
of Corruption Act as well as Indian Penal Code, investigate the
52
exact role played by each of them and to punish them in
accordance with law and render justice.
Thanking You,
Sd/-
Yours obedientiy.
(R.Venkataramana)”
The complaint is in great detail. The complaint then results in a
preliminary enquiry being conducted by the ACB. The finding in the
preliminary enquiry is as follows:
".... .... ....
4. 5ಾರdಾ2?ಾOಯ ಅ'Gಾ+ಯ:
ಅ'Gಾ+ಯ (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಮರ r ೆ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ
ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 12 ರ 1.21 ಎಕ&ೆ ಡುವE ಜZೕನು =+ೕ.5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ರವರ 4ೆಸO’ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 13
ರ 1.20 ಎಕ&ೆ ಡುವ ಜZೕನು =+ೕ.aಾ ಾr&ೆ89 ರವರ 4ೆಸO’ೆ ಇದು>, ಅದ?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂಡಂ ೆ
ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1.25 ಎಕ&ೆ ಹುಲುಬV[ (ಬ) ಖ&ಾಬು ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನು ಇರುತ_ೆ.
, ಾಂಕ: 29-05-1993 ರ =+ೕ.5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಮತು =+ೕ.aಾ ಾr ರವರ ಮನ ಯಂ ೆ ಸ\ೆA
ನಂ. 12 ಮತು 13 ಜZೕV’ೆ (ಂ ಾಮ) ತಹ=ೕ ಾ>R ರವOಂದ ಭೂ ಪOವತA ೆ@ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ.
ನಂತರ (ನ[ಸಂದ+ ‘ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೌ| ೕ|g ಪTಸಕದ ಎಕ&ೆ ೆಕSದ ಾ ೆ@ಾ.ದು>.
ನಂತರ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಪTರಸ$ೆಯು ನಗರಸ$ೆ@ಾ. `ೕಲ>oೆA 4ೊಂ,ದ `ೕ ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮವT
(ಂ ಾಮ) ನಗರಸ$ೆ’ೆ ಒಳಪಡುತ_ೆ. ಕನ[ಂಪ ‘ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೌ| ೕ|g ಪTಸಕವನು[
ಸO@ಾ. ಪO=ೕ ಸ_ೆ, ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಆ.ನ Gೌ&ಾಯುಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ. ಾ&ಾಯಣಪ•, 8.].p.
ಗು ಾಸ&ಾದ =+ೕ.ಜಯ&ಾಮಯ , ಕಂ_ಾಯ VOೕ•ಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ.ಶZೕವT ಾ ರವರು ಜZೕVನ
ಾ ೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ.5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ರವರು ಆಗ (ಂ ಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಾಸಕ&ಾ.ದು> ಮತು ಅವರ ಮಗ
=+ೕ.aಾ ಾr&ೆ89 ರವರ ಅ2?ಾರ ದುರುಪ-ೕಗ,ಂದ, ಅವO’ೆ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಆಗುವಂ ೆ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ.
ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.12 ಮತು 13 ರ ಸ€ಂತ ಜZೕV’ೆ ಭೂ ಪOವತA ೆ@ಾ.ದು>, ಅದ?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂ8ರುವ
ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[ (ಬ) ಖ&ಾಬು 1.25 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನು nೇO] ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ.
?ಾನೂನು ಉಲಂ˜] 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಮತು aಾ ಾr&ೆ89 ರವರುಗE’ೆ ಅಕ+ಮ ಾಭ?ಾS. ಉ_ೆ>ೕಶ,ಂದ
Vಯಮaಾ ರ\ಾ. ಾ ೆಗಳನು[ ಾ8], ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನನು[ ಒತುವO ಾಡಲು ಅನುಕೂಲ
ಾ8?ೊಟುg ಅGಾ+ ಾ)ಕ ೆ%ಂದ ತಮŽ ?ಾನೂನುಬದc ಅ2?ಾರವನು[ ದುರುಪ-ೕಗಪ8]?ೊಂಡು
53ಕತAವ ೋಪ\ೆಸ.ರುವTದು ಭ¡ಾg5ಾರ ಪ+ ಬಂಧಕ ?ಾ„>-1988 ಕಲಂ 13(1),(]),(8) ಮತು ಕಲಂ
447 ಐˆ] ಅ8ಯ =*ಾಹA ಅಪ&ಾಧ\ೆಸ.ರುವTದು Gಾ+ಥZಕ 5ಾರdೆ%ಂದ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರು ೆ.
`ೕ ನಂ ೆ ನ7ೆಸ ಾ.ರುವ Gಾ+ಥZಕ 5ಾರdಾ ವರ, ತಮŽ ಅವ’ಾಹ ೆ’ೆ 4ಾಗೂ
ಮುಂ,ನ ಕ+ಮ?ಾS. ಸ ]_ೆ.”
Pursuant to the preliminary enquiry, the crime in Crime No.4 of
2017 comes to be registered. To the complaint a sketch of the area
is also appended. The sketch is as follows:
54
On the top end of the sketch is Sy.No.11, again the other two are
Sy.Nos. 12 and 13. 37 sites are seen to have been formed in the
Government land by making it as land belonging to Chowdareddy/
accused No.1, M.C.Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar. The details of the
accused are shown in the crime. It is shown as accused
No.1/Chowdareddy, accused No.2/Narayanappa, accused
No.3/Jayaramaiah and the other Shamiulla who by then died.
20. Though the material prima facie discloses that M.C.
Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar were direct beneficiaries, both
stand conspicuously absent from the array of accused. How
beneficiaries of allegedly grabbed Government land remain
outside the dragnet of crime is a matter that raises serious
concern. Yet, since the matter is still at the stage of
investigation, this Court consciously refrains from making
further observations. At this stage, the Court is not expected
to weigh evidence with the precision of trial. The Court only
examines whether the allegations disclose commission of
cognizable offences warranting investigation. They
55unmistakably do. Therefore, investigation in the least
becomes imperative.
21. Insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is concerned,
while all the above was happening, he was the officer of the Town
Municipal Council. Officer in the sense, the Commissioner in the
Town Municipal Council. It is an admitted fact that during that
period he was the Commissioner. As observed, the matter is in the
stage of investigation. He may be dropped from the array of
accused or other accused may be added in the array of accused
while filing the final report. Therefore, it is too premature for this
Court to stall the investigation in the teeth of the aforesaid offence.
22. Several other contentions are sought to be urged by the
learned senior counsel. One factor remains is that the Government
land i.e., ‘B’ kharab can never become the subject matter of
conversion. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules reads as
follows:
56
“21. Classification:- (1) For the purposes of assessment,
all lands shall be classed with respect to their productive qualities.
The number of classes and their relative value reckoned in annas (16
annas, i.e., 100 per cent classification value) shall be fixed under the
orders of the Commissioner for Survey, Settlement and Land Records
with reference to the circumstances of the different tracts of the
State to which the Survey extends and to the nature of the
cultivation, and the classification results shall be recorded in the
following books and forms
(a) Prathi Book;
(b) Bagayat Taktha;
(c) Darwari;
(d) Classers Register;
(e) Statement showing bifurcation of soil and water
assessment;
(f) Akarband.
(2) During the process of classification land included as
unarable shall be treated as “Pot Kharab”. Pot Kharab lands may be
classified as follows
(a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the
time of survey including the farm buildings or
threshing floors of the holder;
(b) That which is not assessed because;
(i) it is reserved or assigned for public
purpose;
(ii) it is occupied by a road or recognised footpath
or by a tank or stream used by persons other
than the holders for irrigation, drinking or
domestic purposes;
(iii) used as burial ground or cremation ground;
(iv) assigned for village potteries.”
57
The legal position concerning B Kharab land admits of no
ambiguity. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules
unmistakably declares such land to be Government land
reserved for specified public purposes. It is incapable of
private appropriation. It is incapable of conversion into
residential layouts. It cannot be transformed into a private
commodity merely because power, influence, or
administrative silence aided such transformation.
23. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in THE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE v.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER1 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether merely on acquisition of land under
any Prevalent Acquisition Act right of the
public in the ”B Kharab’ land subject matter
of acquisition would stand automatically
extinguished?
2. Can a beneficiary of an acquisition claim that
once a land acquired has been handed over to
the beneficiary the ‘B Kharab’ flowing along
1
Writ Petition No.13483 of 2022 decided 12-12-2023
58with the said land would also vest with the
beneficiary, with the right of the general
public being automatically extinguished?
3. Can the reliefs sought for in the writ petition
be granted?
4. What order?
9. I answer the above points as under;
10. Answer to point No.1: Whether merely on
acquisition of land under any Prevalent Acquisition
Act right of the public in the ”B Kharab’ land
subject matter of acquisition would stand
automatically extinguished?
And
Answer to point No.2: Can a beneficiary of an
acquisition claim that once a land acquired has
been handed over to the beneficiary the ‘B Kharab’
flowing along with the said land would also vest
with the beneficiary, with the right of the general
public being automatically extinguished?
8.1 Both the questions being related to each other are taken
up together for consideration.
8.2 Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
67. Public roads, etc., and all lands which are not
the property of others belong to the
Government.–
59
(1) All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges,
ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the
bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high
water mark and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and
tanks and all canals and water-courses and all standing
and flowing waters, and all lands wherever situated
which are not the property of individuals or of aggregate
of persons legally capable of holding property, and
except in so far as any rights of such persons may be
established, in or over the same, and except as may be
otherwise provided in any law for the time being in
force, are and are hereby declared to be with all rights
in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the
property of the State Government.
Explanation.–In this section, “high-water mark” means
the highest point reached by ordinary spring tides at any
season of the year.
(2) Where any property or any right in or over any
property is claimed by or on behalf of the State
Government or by any person as against the State
Government, it shall be lawful for the Deputy
Commissioner or a Survey Officer not lower in rank than
a Deputy Commissioner, after formal inquiry to pass an
order deciding the claim.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-
section (2) or in appeal or revision therefrom may
institute a civil suit contesting the order within a period
of one year from the date of such order and the final
decision in the civil suit shall be binding on the parties
8.3 A perusal of the said provision would indicate that all
public roads, streets, lanes, paths, bridges, ditches, dikes
and fences would stand vested with and belong to the
Government. A ‘kaludari’ which is a footpath or a Bandi
Jadu which is a cart-track are roads of the past which
were used by the persons residing in and around the area
for access to the different areas.
60
8.4 Thus, the concept of public roads, streets lanes and
parks, in my considered opinion would also include a
‘kaludari’ and/or a Bandi Jadu which is in the nature of a
road. This ‘kaludari’ and/or Bandi Jadu is demarcated in
the village map and in concerned Revenue documents
and is classified as ‘B Kharab’ lands as regards with the
landowner is not required make payment of any land
revenue.
8.5 This being so for the reason that the said land is not
exclusively enjoyed by the landowner but is reserved for
usage by the general public in terms of Section 67 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. These lands, though
belonging to the Government, the right of the general
public is also vested in the said land and cannot be
divested without following the procedure prescribed under
Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Section 68 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
68. Extinction of rights of public and
individuals in or over any public road,
street, lane or path not required for use of
public.–
(1) Whenever it appears to the State
Government that the whole or any part of any
public road, street, lane, or path which is the
property of the State Government, is not
required for the use of the public, the State
Government may, by notification, make a
declaration to such effect, stating in such
declaration that it is proposed that the rights of
the public as well as of all persons in or over any
such road, street, lane or path, or part thereof,
as the case may be, shall be extinguished. On
the publication of such notification, the Deputy
Commissioner, shall, as soon as possible cause
public notice of such declaration to be given at
convenient places on, or in the vicinity of, such
road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, as the
case may be. Such declaration and notice shall
specify, as far as practicable, the situation and
limits of such road, street, lane or path or part
61
thereof, and shall invite objections to the
aforesaid proposal.
(2) Any member of the public or any person
having any interest or right, in addition to the
right of public high-way, in or over such road,
street, lane or path or part thereof, or having any
other interest or right which is likely to be
adversely affected by the proposal may, within
one month after the issue of the notification,
under sub-section (1), state to the Deputy
Commissioner in writing his objections to the
proposal, the nature of his interest or right and
the manner in which it is likely to be adversely
affected and the amount and particulars of his
claim to compensation for such interest or right:
Provided that the Deputy Commissioner
may allow any person to make such statement
after the period of one month after the issue of
the notification under subsection (1), if he is
satisfied that such person had sufficient cause for
not making it within the said period.
(3) The Deputy Commissioner shall give every
person who has made a statement to him under
sub-section (2), an opportunity of being heard
either in person or by pleader and shall, after
hearing all such persons in such manner and
after making such further enquiry, if any, as he
thinks necessary, determine the amount of
compensation, if any, which should, in his
opinion, be given in any case in respect of any
substantial loss or damage likely to be caused by
the proposed extinction of the rights of the public
as well as of persons as aforesaid. The provisions
of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) shall, so far as
may be, apply to the proceedings held by the
Deputy Commissioner under this sub-section.
(4) The Deputy Commissioner shall submit to the
State Government the record of the proceedings
held by him with the report, containing his
recommendations on the objections, if any,
62received by him stating the amount of
compensation, if any, which, in his opinion, are
payable to any person.
(5) If the State Government is satisfied after
considering the record of the proceedings and the
report, if any, made under sub-section (4) that
the public road, street, lane or path, or part
thereof, specified in the notification under sub-
section (1) is not required for the use of the
public, a declaration shall be published in the
official Gazette that all rights of the public as well
as of all persons in or over such road, street,
lane, or path, or part thereof, are extinguished;
and all such rights shall thereupon be
extinguished, and such road, street, lane or path,
or part thereof, shall be at the disposal of the
State Government with effect from the date of
such declaration.
(6) The decision of the Deputy Commissioner,
subject to such appeals or revision as are allowed
under Chapter V, regarding the amount of
compensation and the person to whom such
compensation, if any, is payable, shall be final;
and payment shall be made by the Deputy
Commissioner to such persons accordingly.
8.6 For the purposes of extinction of the rights of the public
and individuals in a ‘kaludari’ or a Bandi Jadu the
procedure under Section 68 would have to be followed
with the declaration that the rights of the public as well as
all persons over such roads are extinguished.
8.7 The notification envisaged under Section 68 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is different from an
acquisition notification under the land Acquisition Act,
1894 or any other Act providing for acquisition of land.
The acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act
1894 is only relating to the land belonging to a private
individual or an entity and it is the ownership rights in
respect of that land which would get vested with the
State on the acquisition being completed.
63
8.8 In so far as the land reserved for a park, road, etc., like a
‘kaludari’ or Bandi Jadu the said land always vested with
a State but with a right of public and individuals being
recognized therein. In that background, I am unable to
agree with contention of Sri.T.Swaroop learned counsel
for the petitioner that upon the acquisition of land the
right of the public to use a pathway or a ‘kaludari’ would
stand extinguished and that the APMC was entitled to
make use of the entire land.
8.9 In the present case there is only an acquisition
notification which has been issued and the procedure
under Section 68 has not been followed by the State. In
fact, the contention of the State is that the said
demarcation or reservation of the land for public use has
not been disturbed and the public would continue to have
a right to use the said Kharab land.
8.10 That being the case the procedure under Section 68
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 not
having been followed the right of the general public
and/or the individuals to make use of the ‘kaludari’
would continue in the said land and as such the
beneficiary of the acquisition cannot now contend
that the right of the public use has been
extinguished.
8.11 Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that merely
on acquisition of land under any Prevalent land
Acquisition Act right of the public in the ”B Kharab’
land subject matter of acquisition would not stand
automatically extinguished, but the procedure
under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act would have to be followed for such
extinguishment.
64
8.12 Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that a
beneficiary of an acquisition cannot claim that once
a land acquired has been handed over to the
beneficiary the ‘B Kharab’ flowing along with the
said land would also vest with the beneficiary, with
the right of the general public being automatically
extinguished.
11. Answer to point No.3: Can the reliefs sought for in
the writ petition be granted?
11.1. In view of my answers to points No.1 and 2 the
notice issued by the Thashildar calling upon the
petitioner to keep the ‘B Kharab’ land designated
for ‘kaludari’ free of any obstruction cannot be
found fault with. Consequently, the order passed
by the Executive Officer on that basis reserving the
land and directing the petitioner-APMC to remove
the compound wall obstructing the ‘kaludari’ cannot
also be found fault.
11.2 The petitioner cannot encroach or enclose any land
reserved for public use in terms of Section 67
without following the procedure under Section 68
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Hence,
I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is
not entitled to the reliefs which are sought for.
11.3 At this stage Sri.T.Swaroop., learned counsel for
the petitioner seeks liberty to approach the
jurisdictional authorities under Section 68 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act or for shifting of the
location of the existing ‘kaludari’. Liberty is always
available to the petitioner to approach said
authorities and as such no further liberty is
required to be granted by this Court.
65
12. Answer to point No.4: what order?
With the above observations, the petition stands
dismissed.”
24. A little earlier another coordinate Bench in SENA VIHAR
OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R) v. SRI BANDARAPPA
BHAKTHADIGALA SANGHA (R) – R.F.A. No.23 of 2017 decided
on 08-09-2023 set at naught the order of the civil Court on the
score even one gunta of pot kharab land which belongs to
Government cannot be taken away by private citizen. Coordinate
Benches of this Court in THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET
COMMITTEE v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER and SENA VIHAR
OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R) v. BANDARAPPA
BHAKTHADIGALA SANGHA (R) have reiterated this principle with
clarity: even a single gunta of Government pot kharab land cannot
be appropriated by private citizens.
25. It is however a trite law that a FIR is not an
encyclopaedia of offences. In the teeth of the afore-narrated facts,
the crime ought to be investigated into. The accused may be added
66
or accused may be dropped; the offences may be added and the
offences may be dropped. Reference being made to the judgment
of the Apex Court which holds that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of
offences becomes apposite in the obtaining facts. The Apex Court
in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
2
(2021) 19 SCC 401
67
In the light of the afore-narrated facts, glaring enough they are, the
allegations disclose serious and triable issues, which demand
thorough investigation.
Thus, the armoury from the arsenal of Smt. Keerthi Reddy,
learned counsel for the complainant would far outweigh the
armoury from the learned senior counsel Sri Y. R. Sadashivareddy
and Sri B. K. Manjunath, learned counsel for petitioners.
26. The fulcrum of the complaint is of land grabbing. Land
grabbing by ordinary citizens is a serious illegality. Land
grabbing by those clothed with political power strikes at
something far deeper–it erodes public faith in governance
itself. When custodians of public trust become beneficiaries
of alleged public wrongs. This Court cannot permit
investigation to be throttled at inception in a matter of such
gravity. To interdict investigation, at this stage, would
amount to shutting the door on truth, before it has even
entered the room. Investigation, therefore, is not merely
warranted; it is indispensable.
68
27. For all the aforesaid reasons, these petitions, being
devoid of merit, stand dismissed.
It is made clear that the observations made in the course of
the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the issue in
the lis and would not bind or influence the investigation or further
proceedings.
Having regard to the fact that the complaint dates back to
2016 and the crime to 2017, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct the investigating agency to conclude the investigation with
utmost expedition and, in any event, within an outer limit of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
