Kerala High Court
S.J.Prasad vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
2025:KER:51325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6520 OF 2024
CRIME NO.17/2015 OF VACB, KASARAGOD, Kasargod
CC NO.15 OF 2022 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THALASSERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
S.J.PRASAD
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.LATE KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE, PULIKUNNU,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121
BY ADVS.
SHRI. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SHRI. GOVIND G. NAIR
SRI.BALU TOM
SRI.BONNY BENNY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SPL PP RAJESH.A FOR VACB,SRPP REKHA.S FOR VACB.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51325
CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024
2
CR
ORDER
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025 Accused No.4 in C.C.No.15/2022 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thalassery, arising out of crime No.17/2015 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as 'VACB' for short), Kasargod, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking quashment of the entire proceedings in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ 4th accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the documents placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the relevant documents form part of the final report.
2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 3
3. The prosecution case is that, on the basis of a petition received on 06.07.2015 from Sri.K.M.Muhammed Haneef, S/o.Abdul Rahman, Aged 47/16, Muttathody Village, Alambady Kasaragod, regarding the illegal possession of government land in Thalangara Village by private individuals, a quick verification was conducted by the Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau, Kasaragod Unit and found that the government land extending 3.68 acres was illegally possessed by private individuals, Sri.Saji Sebastian, Sri M.Krishnan Nair, Sri.A.Gopinathan Nair and Sri.S.J.Prasad (the petitioner herein) with the connivance of government officials, Sri.K.Sivakumar, the former Election Deputy Tahsildar, Kasaragod; Sri.Cheniyappa, the former Tahsildar, Kasaragod; Sri. Robin D'Silva, the former Sub Registrar, Kasaragod and Sri.T.O. Sooraj IAS, the former Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and the successor of Sri.Ganappayya 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 4 who had taken on lease the land from the State of Madras on 30.09.1903. The Quick verification report was submitted to the Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, with the recommendation to register a Vigilance case. As per the order of the Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, vide order No. E14 (QV3/15/KSD) 23405/15 dtd 15.07.2025, a vigilance case was registered in Kasaragod Vigilance unit on this matter as VC 17/15/KSD under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act' for short) and Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) on 16.07.2015.
4. Investigation of this case has been conducted by Sri.K.V.Raghuraman and V.K. Prabhakaran who were the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kasaragod Unit and charge sheet of the case was filed by Sri.K.V. 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 5 Venugopal, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kasaragod. Investigation revealed that Sri.S.J.Prasad, the petitioner herein, purchased 91 cents of land in RS Nos. 27/14, 28/02 and 27/13 of Thalangara village as per document No.3867/09/I and also purchased 33 cents of land in RS Nos.27/03 and 27/6 (in the statement filed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS No.27/06 is stated as '27/10') of Thalangara village as per document No 3868/09/I.
5. While seeking quashment of the entire proceedings, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has purchased 1.24 acres of land (91 cents + 33 cents) in RS Nos.27/3, 27/06, 27/13, 27/14 and 28/2 (in the statement filed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS No.27/06 is stated as '27/10') of Thalangara village for valid consideration and accordingly, the title holders executed two sale deeds in his favour. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 6 further that as per Annexure A5, Patta No.224 was issued in favour of the executants of the document and believing the Patta and also after getting the legal opinion from CW24 to the effect that the property was fit for sale, the petitioner purchased the property. Therefore, the petitioner has no intention to commit any crime as alleged by the prosecution. Referring to the charge, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued further that the recitals in the charge would not suggest any allegation of conspiracy at the instance of the petitioner and in such view of the matter, none of the offences otherwise would attract against the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that as per Annexure A2 order dated 09/2010, the District Collector, Kasargod, passed an order holding that the above properties are government land. However, when Annexure A2 order was challenged before the Commissioner of Land Tribunal, the Commissioner set aside the said order. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the order 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 7 of the Commissioner in the appeal is now stayed by the Government and the matter is pending for consideration. Therefore, the quashment prayer is liable to succeed.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that Annexure A5 pattah is the outcome of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Kasargod, dated 30.04.1973 in O.A.No.1299/71 in favour of Ammoo Poojary and thereafter, in the appeal preferred by Ramesha Rao, before the Appellate Authority, (Land Reforms) Kozhikode, as AA No.1041/73, the order dated 30.04.1973 passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside. Thus, in view of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act' for short), as on 01.01.1970, the property reverted back to the Government and is continuing as the same. Therefore, the sale and the purchase of the property, which is vested in the Government, would attract the offences alleged against the 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 8 petitioner, for which trial is necessary. Therefore, quashment could not be considered.
7. Coming to the allegation, it could be gathered that the case was charge sheeted against the accused as A1 - Sri.K.Sivakumar, the former Deputy Tahsildar (Election), Kasaragod, S/o.Rama Rao, Aged 58/16, Kunjar House, Bela PO, Kasaragod; A2 - Sri.M. Cheniyappa, the former Tahsildar, Kasaragod, S/o.Vengappa, Aged 60/16, Anandanidhi House, Kailasapuram, Udayagiri, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod; A3 - Sri. Robin D'Silva, the former Jr.Supdt., District Registrar Office, Kasaragod, S/o William D'Silva, Aged 50/15, Megen Cottage, Beach Road, Achappa Shetty Line, Nellikkunnu, Kasaragod, Former U.D.Clerk, Sub Registrar Office, Kasaragod; A4 - Sri. S.J. Prasad, S/o.Krishna Bhat, Aged 62/16, Thuruthi House, Pulikunnu, Kasaragod; A5 - Sri. Ananda Rao, S/o. C.Sanjeeva Rao, Aged 90/16, No.703/Chitrapur Housing Society, 15th 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 9 Cross, 8th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560055; A6 - Sri. Devidas Sanjeeva Chandavarkar, S/o.Late C. Sanjeeva Rao, Aged 87/16, No.900, 1st floor, 6th Main, Kavalbyrasandra, New extension, RT Nagar PO, Bangalore- 560032; A7 - Sri.Ashwin G.Chandavarkar, Aged 45/2009, S/o.Gopinath Chandavarkar, M 707, Brigade Gateway, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram West, Bangalore-55; A8 - Smt.Manjula.J.C, Aged 66/16, D/o.M.R.Honnavar and W/o.Jayanth.C. Chandavarkar, Janapriya Havens, 2036, 7th block, G.K.V.K.P.O, Allala Sandra, Bangalore-65 on 16.09.2022, and A9 - Sri.B.Chandrashekara Adiga, Document Writer, Kasaragod, S/o.B.Madhava Adiga, aged 44/16, Sreelakshmi House, S.V. T. Road, Kasaragod.
8. Smt.Lalitha.S.Chandavarkar, D/o.C.Sanjeeva Rao and W/o.Sri.S.J.Chandavarkar, No.703/Chitrapur Housing Society, 15th Cross, 8th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore-
2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 10 560055; Rajarama Rao, Kavalbyrasandra, New extension, RT Nagar PO, Bangalore-560032, Smt. Anupa.J, Aged 55/2009; D/o.Late Gopinath. S. Chandavarkar, No. 606, Chitrapur Co-op. Housing Society, 5th cross, 8th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 565055 who were arrayed as accused in the FIR stage died during investigation stage and were deleted.
9. Charge levelled against the accused is that, with the fraudulent intention of grabbing the government property accused Nos.1 to 9 conspired with each other, accused Nos.1 & 2 accepted the land tax for a period of 30 years with arrears with respect to 1.24 acre of government land comprised in RS Nos.27/06, 27/13, 28/2, 27/14 and 27/3 (in the statement filed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS No.27/06 is stated as 27/10 and RS No.28/2 is stated as 27/2) in Thalangara village on 19-08-2009. Accused Nos.5 to 8 handed over this property to accused No.4 by registering two 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 11 sale deeds with the assistance of accused No.3 and 9, thereby caused to possess the property of the Kasaragod fort having historical importance by private persons. Thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 misused their official position, cheated the government and caused illegal gain to the other accused persons, including the petitioner. Thus, all the accused persons committed the offence under sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 1988 and under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC.
10. Reverting to the factual aspects elicited, petitioner herein who is the 4th accused in this case and the allegation is that he had purchased 1.24 acres government land situated in Thalangara village from accused Nos.5 to 8 with the connivance of accused Nos.1 to 3, who are public servants, and accused No.9 illegally claiming legal rights over the land and illegally possessing the Government land by fraudulent means.
2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 12
11. Kasaragod Fort is a historically important monument situated in the prime area of Kasaragod Town. It is situated in RS.Nos.27 and 28 of Thalangara Village in Kasaragod Taluk. It is stated that the Board of Revenue, Madras, as per lease agreement dtd. 30.09.1903, has leased out the above property on "Mulageni" to Sri. Ganapayya on "ground rent". The "Mulageni" is the perpetual lease, heritable and may be sub-leased by the "Mulagenidar" and the land leased under "Mulageni" should not be alienated by the "Mulagenidar".
12. Investigation findings concluded that the board of Revenue Madras as per the lease agreement dtd. 30.09.1903 has leased out the land covering 5.41 acre in RS. Nos.27 & 28 in Thalangara Village to Ganappayya. In 1906, his son Narasimha Rao applied for Patta to the above land and Board of Revenue Madras issued Patta as per file No. 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 13 DR.368/1906/1315 on 30.10.1906. In resurvey, these land including the Patta No.224 in the name of Narasimha Rao as Pattayadar later the ownership changed to his son Sanjeeva Rao and daughter Rathna Bahi. Subsequently Sri. Sanjeeva Rao, sub-leased the land to Sri. Ammoo Poojary by virtue of rent bond dtd. 03.05.1956.
13. On 20.12.1971, Sri.Ammoo Poojary, S/o.Batya Poojary, residing at Fort, Kasaragod Kasaba, Kasaragod Taluk, filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod for Assignment of Landlord's Rights (Janmam Right) under Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969, for the land measuring 2.49 acres in RS No. 27/6, 1.25 acres in RS No. 27/7, 0.15 in RS No. 27/10, 0.01 acres in RS No. 27/13, 0.58 acres in RS No. 27/14 and 0.32 acres in RS No. 28/2 in Thalangara Village (Total 4.80 acres).
2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 14
14. The Land Tribunal, Kasaragod, in the order dtd. 30.04.1973, held that the petitioner, Sri. Ammoo Poojary, is a cultivating tenant of the property scheduled under Section 72B of the KLR Act, though the right, title and interest of the landlord in that property stand vested in the government on 01.01.1970 by operation of Section 72 of the KLR Act and that the petitioner is entitled for the assignment of the same. Hence, 4.80 acres of land in Kasaragod Fort was assigned to Sri.Ammoo Poojary under Section 72(F)(5) of KLR Act.
15. Sri. Ramesha Rao, the respondent in the above case, filed appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Kozhikode as AA 1041/1973 under section 102 of KLR Act, against the order of the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod in OA No. 1299/71 did, 30.04.1973. In the appeal petition the appellant Sri. Ramesha Rao argued that the disputed property is government land granted to the great grandfather of the 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 15 appellant by the government on "Mulageni" and hence the same was exempted from the purview of section 3 of the KLR Act. The Appellate Authority, vide Judgement dtd. 25.07.1974, allowed the appeal filed,by Sri. Ramesha Rao and dismissed the order of the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod, holding that "the transactions as per which the petitioners in possession is exempted from the provisions of KLR Act by virtue of sections 3(1)(1) and 3(1)(12) and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the application for purchase under section 72". Sri Ammoo Poojary had not filed any appeal against this order.
16. Later, in the year 1987, ie, after a lapse of 13 years Sri. K Sanjeeva, S/o.Ammoo Poojary and others filed an Original Suit as No.111 of 1987 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod against the defendants Sri. Ramesha Rao and others for a declaration that they are the 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 16 cultivating tenants in respect of the scheduled property of 4.80 acres in the aforesaid case and entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that the plaintiffs are entitled to ignore the order dtd. 25.01.1974 of the Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in AA 1041/1973 and for restraining the defendants from creating any documents in respect of the properties or from interfering with the peaceful possession of the properties etc. The Subordinate Court dismissed the suit with costs observing that the decision of the Appellate Authority will operate as res judicata. Since the said finding has become final, vide judgment dtd. 31.10.1994 in AA 1041/1973. The said decree was challenged before this Court vide SA No. 727/1997(c) which was also dismissed vide judgment dt. 25.07.2006 upholding the Judgment of the trial court referring the verdict of the Appellate Authority dtd. 25.01.1974.
2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 17
17. Sri. Ashwin. G. Chandavarkar, S/o Gopinatha Rao, one of the legal heirs of Sri. C. Ganapayya, filed an application to the Village Officer, Thalangara on 17.08.2009 requesting to accept basic tax for 2.44 acres of land in RS No. 27/6 pt, 0.58 acre in RS No. 27/14, 0.18 acre in 27/3 pt, 0.15 acre in RS No. 27/10, 0.01 acre in RS No. 27/13 and 0.32 acre in RS No.28/2 (Total 3.68 acres). He forwarded the application of Ashwin.G. Chandavarkar with his report on 18.08.2009 to the Tahsildar, Kasaragod.
18. As per the direction of Sri.M.Cheniyappa, Tahsildar Kasragod, K.Sivakumar Deputy Tahsildar Election who was also the Charge Officer of Thalangara Village, conducted an enquiry on the petition of Sri. Ashwin and submitted a report to the Tahsildar. In the enquiry report it is stated that the basic tax was not accepted for a long time due to the litigations existed on the land and that Sri. Ashwin and 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 18 others are the legal heirs of the original pattedhar. It further stated that as per the Adangal and 10-I Register the land was registered in favour of Sri. Chandavara Sanjeeva Rao and all judgments show that the encroachers have no manner of rights over the land. The report recommended for acceptance of basic tax in respect of the land in RS No. 27/6 pt (2.44 acr.), 27/14 (0.58 acr.), 27/3 pt (0.18 acr.), 27/10 pt (0.15 acr.), 27/13 (0.01 acr.) and 28/2 (0.32 acr.).
19. As per Document No. 3867/09/I sale deed in respect of 58 cents in RS No. 27/14 ( Old Survey No. 9/12), 32 cents in RS No. 28/2 (Old Survey No. 9/2) and 1 cent in RS No. 27/13 (Old Survey No. 9/2) (Total 91 cents of land) was registered in favour of Sri.S.J.Prasad (Accused No.4) for a consideration of Rs.12,01,000/-. As per Document No. 3868/09/I sale deed in respect of 18 cents in RS No.27/3 (Old Survey No. 9/20) and 15 cents in RS No.27/10 (Old Survey 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 19 No.9/9) (Total 33 cents of land) was registered in favour of Sri.S.J.Prasad (Accused No.4) for a consideration of Rs.2,15,000/-.
20. It is true that CW14, who conducted the case before the Land Tribunal and before the Appellate Tribunal, (after taking work in Bangalore, stopped his practice in the year 2001), was consulted by the petitioner as well as the prior owners, seeking legal opinion and he had given an opinion that the property could be sold. In fact, the legal opinion has no significance and it is the duty of the petitioner to be beware while purchasing property by tracing the previous title deeds to ensure that the property offered for sale is a property for which the seller has absolute ownership and title.
21. In the instant case, 1.24 acres of land (91 cents + 33 cents) in RS Nos.27/3, 27/06, 27/13, 27/14 and 28/2 (in the statement filed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS No.27/06 is stated as 27/10) of Thalangara Village is evidently 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 20 government puramboke land since the tenancy of Sri.Ganappayya, as per lease agreement dated 30.09.1903, came to an end as on 01.01.1970 the property vested with the government, in view of the operation of Section 72 of the KLR Act. Knowing this fact fully well, on 20.12.1970, Sri.Ammoo Poojary filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Kasargod, for assignment of the landlord's right (janmam right) under Section 4 of the KLR Act for a total extent of 4.8 acres in RS Nos.27/6, 27/7, 27/10, 27/13, 27/14 and 28/2. As per order dated 30.04.1973, the Land Tribunal, Kasargod assigned the property in favour of Ammoo Poojary under Section 72(F)(5) of KLR Act. Challenging the said order, Ramesha Rao filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhikode, as AA 1041/1973 under Section 102 of the KLR Act challenging the order of the Land Tribunal in OA No.1299/71. The Appellate Authority, as per judgment dated 25.07.1974 allowed the appeal filed by Ramesha Rao and set 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 21 aside the order of the Land Tribunal, holding that "the transactions as per which the petitioners in possession are exempted from the provisions of KLR Act by virtue of sections 3(1)(1) and 3(1)(12) and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the application for purchase under section 72". Since no challenge raised against the said finding, the appellate order has become final and accordingly, the property thereafter remained as government land. It is true that after 13 years, in the year 1987, Sri. K Sanjeeva, S/o Ammoo Poojary and others filed OS No.111 of 1987 before the Sub Court, Kasaragod against Sri. Ramesha Rao and others for declaring them as the cultivating tenants in respect of 4.80 acres of property and the said suit was dismissed and appeal therefrom, vide SA No. 727/1997(c) was also dismissed by this Court on 25.07.2006. Thus the claim for tenancy over the 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 22 leasehold right on the basis of "Mulageni" lease deed was found against by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Sub Court as well as the High Court also negatived the said claim. Thereafter, the persons who claimed tenancy right and failed to establish the same as per law, transferred the properties in the name of the petitioner as per document Nos.3867/2009 and 3868/2009 and thereby transferred government land in his favour. The pattah relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide pattah No.224, in fact, was cancelled by the order of the Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the same has no legal existence. Since the documents would show that the property owned by the government, for which claim for tenancy was denied by the competent authorities as well as the civil courts, was sold in the name of the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer. In such a case, it could not be held that the petitioner is innocent in 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 23 getting transfer of the government land from the other accused, who do not have any title over the same. Therefore, the prosecution materials are in abundance, prima facie, to see the involvement of the petitioner in getting transfer of government land in his favour and in such a case, trial is absolutely necessary to find out the truth of the prosecution allegations. Even though, in the final report, conspiracy is not specifically alleged against the petitioner, the prosecution records specifically would show conspiracy hatched by all the accused. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner on that point also would fail.
In view of the discussion, this petition is liable to fail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with direction to the trial court to proceed with trial of the case, as expeditiously as possible.
2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 24 Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr 2025:KER:51325 CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024 25 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6520/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & CHARGE BEFORE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE COURT, THALASSERY ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE DATED 25.01.2013 ALONG WITH THE TYPED COPY ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD DATED 30.10.1906 IN DARKASTH CASE NO.368 ON THE REGISTER FOR 1906/1315 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADANGAL EXTRACT AND 10I EXTRACT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, THALANGARA ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES DATED 05.03.2010 ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES DATED 05.03.2010