Sri T R Muniraju vs Sri M Chandra Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4006 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

             W.P.No. 43399/2018 (KLGP)

  BETWEEN :

  Sri. T.R. Muniraju
  S/o. late Sri. N.P. Ramaiah
  @ N.P. Ramaiah Reddy
  Aged about 55 years
  Residing at No. 27, 3rd Cross
  I Main, Vinayakanagar
  B Block, Konena Agrahara
  Bengaluru - 560 017.                 ...Petitioner

  (By Sri C Shankar Reddy, Advocate)

  AND :

  1.   Sri. M. Chandra Reddy
       Aged about 66 years
       Son of late Muniswamy Reddy

  2.   Sri. C. Lohit
       Aged about 34 years
       Son of Sri M Chandra Reddy
                       -2-


     Respondents 1 and 2 are
     R/at No.2491, 17th main
     HAL 2nd stage
     Bengaluru - 560 008.

3.   Smt. Divya C
     Aged about 32 years
     Daughter of Sri M Chandra Reddy
     Wife of Sri Navin Kumar S
     Residing at No.197, Iris Manor
     2nd Main, 2nd Stage, Domlur
     Bengaluru - 560 017.

4.   M/s. Sharanya Properties Private Limited
     A Private Limited Company having
     its office at Sharanya Spring
     Sy.No.48, # 18, Green Garden
     Layout, Shirdi Sai Temple Road
     Munnekolala, Kundalahalli
     Marathahalli Post
     Bengaluru - 560 037.

     Represented by its managing Director
     Sri y Madhu
     Aged about 37 years
     Son of Mr.Y Bhaskar Naidu
     Residing at 'Sharanya Nivas'
     No.73, 1st Cross, 12th Main
     Laughing waters, Ramagondahalli
     Village and post
     Whitefiled main road
     Bengaluru - 560 066.

5.   The Deputy Commissioner
     Bengaluru Urban District
     Kandaya Bhavana
                        -3-


      Bengaluru - 560 009.

6.    Karnataka Public Lands Corporation
      Rep. by its Managing Director
      2nd floor, Deputy Commissioner's
      Office building, K.G.Road
      Bengaluru - 560 009.

7.    The Assistant Commissioner
      Bengaluru North Sub Division
      Kandaya Bhavana
      Bengaluru - 560 009.

8.    The Tahsildar
      K.R.Puram
      Bengaluru East Taluk
      Bengaluru - 560 048.

9.    The Commissioner
      Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
      Kittoor Rani Chennamma Circle
      Bengaluru - 560 009.

10.   The Joint Commissioner
      Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
      Palike, Mahadevapura Zone
      Bengaluru - 560 048.

11.   The Bengaluru Metropolitan
      Task Force, Bruhat Bengaluru
      Mahanagara Palike, Kittoor Rani
      Chennamma Circle
      Bengaluru - 560 009.

12.   The Chief Engineer
      (Storm water Drain)
                         -4-


        Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
        4th Block, 9th Floor
        Jayanagar BDA Complex
        Bengaluru - 560 011.          ...Respondents


(By    Sri B.S.Chennakeshava, Advocate for R1-R3
 Sri   Mahabaleshwara G.C, Advocate for R4
 Sri   Jeevan J Neeralgi, AGA for R5-R8
 Sri   B.V.Muralidhar, Advocate for R9-R12)

     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 And
227 of the Constitution of India, Praying to call for the
records from the file of the Hon'ble Karnataka Land
Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts at Bengaluru (CH-
2) in LGC (P) No.116/2018, issue notices to the
respondents, hear the parties and set aside the order
dated 28.03.2018 passed therein as per Annexure-Z
to the writ petition and grant reliefs as sought for in
the said petition.

     This Petition coming on for Hearing, this day,
Shivashankar Amarannavar J, made the following:

                       ORDER

This petition is filed seeking to set aside the

order dated 28.03.2018 passed in LGC(P) 116/2018

(Annexure Z) by Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition

Special Court, Bengaluru (CH2) (hereinafter referred

to as the `Special Court') and to set aside the order

dated 06.08.2018 passed by the Special Court in

Review Petition No. 2/2018 (Annexure-EE).

2. Heard Sri. C.S. Shankar Reddy, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.S.Chennakeshava,

learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner

had filed a complaint under Section 9(1) of the

Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for

short `the Act') alleging that respondent Nos.1 to 4

have encroached upon 16 guntas of karab land in

survey No. 63/1 of Thubarahalli Village, Vartur Hobli,

Bengaluru east Taluk and to order for clearance of

encroachment made on the said Government karab

land and various other reliefs consequent to

resumption of the said land to the Government. On

the said complaint the Special Court issued notice to

appeared before the Special Court and filed their

statement of objections. After hearing both the parties

and considering the documents produced the Special

Court has held that encroachment on the Government

land by a private person cannot be made out under

Section 4(3) of the Act and rejected the complaint of

the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a review

petition in RP No. 2/2018 seeking review of the order

dated 28.03.2018 passed in LGC(P) No. 16/2018

(Annexure-Z). The Special Court after issuing notice

and hearing the respondents has rejected the review

petition by order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure - EE).

The petitioner has challenged the said orders in this

petition.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their

statement of objections along with documents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that B-karab land in survey No. 63/1 to an

extent of 16 guntas is classified as `Raja Kaluve'

which is reserved for public purpose and could not

have been divested for any other purpose. Therefore,

if there is a Government order divesting the same for

private use the same cannot be sustained in law and

the respondents ought to have been hauled up for an

offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends

that in the sanction plan (Annexure -GG) issued by

the Assistant Director, Town Planning, BBMP,

Mahadevapura zone, Bengaluru, dated 08.05.2017,

wherein the thatched portion on the western side is

shown as "Nala kharab area" and the same is the 16

guntas of land in survey No. 63/1. He further submits

that the said sanction plan has been issued at the

instance of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in pursuance of a

Joint Development Agreement. It is his further

submission that the very fact itself shows that 16

guntas of land in survey No. 63/1 is a Government

land and the respondents have encroached the same

and committed an act of land grabbing. It is his

further submission that the Special Court has not

taken into consideration the above said aspects and

passed the orders at Annexure - Z and EE which

requires to be set aside by this Court.

would contend that the respondents filed application

under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act

(for short `KLR Act') and the Government of

Karnataka has issued notification under Section 68(5)

of the KLR Act extinguishing the right of the public

over the land in question by following the procedure

contained under Section 68 of the KLR Act. It is his

further submission that the petitioner has challenged

the issuance of said notification under Section 68(5) of

the KLR Act in W.P. No. 53807/2018 and the same

came to be rejected by order dated 09.09.2019 and

the same has been challenged in W.A. No. 2/2020 and

the it came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

13.01.2020. He further contends that therefore by

virtue of the said notification issued under Section

68(5) of the Act by the Government of Karnataka the

right of the public over the land in question have been

extinguished and the same has become final and the

petitioner has not challenged the order passed in W.A.

No. 2/2020. He substantiated the order passed by the

Special Court.

7. Admittedly land measuring 16 guntas in

survey No. 63/1 was originally classified as B-karab

land. The petitioner contended that said B-karab land

had been classified as `Raja Kaluve' and the

respondents contended that it is `Bandi Daari' (Car

- 10 -

track). On an application filed by the respondent No. 1

under Section 68 of the KLR Act the Government of

Karnataka has issued a notification under Section

68(5) of the KLR Act extinguishing the right of the

public over the land measuring 16 guntas in survey

No. 63/1. The issuance of said notification has been

challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 53807/2018

contending that the procedure contained in Section 68

of the KLR Act has not been followed. The writ Court

by a reasoned order dated 09.09.2019 has rejected

the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner has

challenged the said order dated 09.09.2019 by filing a

writ appeal in W.A. No. 2/2020 and the same came to

be dismissed by judgment dated 13.01.2020. The

petitioner has not challenged the said judgment dated

13.01.2020. Therefore, issuance of the said

notification under Section 68(5) of the KLR Act

- 11 -

extinguishing the right of the public over the said land

in 16 guntas in survey No. 63(1) became final.

8. In the copy of the sanctioned plan (Annexure

GG) on the western side it is shown that the thatched

portion is `nala kharab area'. Basing on the said

document learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that it is `Raja kaluve'. Even though the said

document consists of two pages, only first page of the

said document is produced. Merely because `nala

karab area' is stated in the said plan it cannot be said

that it is `Raja kaluve' as contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. In view of the notification

issued by the Government of Karnataka under Section

68(5) of the KLR Act extinguished the right of the

public over the land in question. The petitioner has not

produced any other documents to show that the said

land is `Raja kaluve'. Even the said land of 16 guntas

in survey No. 63/1 came to be converted from

- 12 -

agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose by

order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru

for which the respondent No.1 has deposited the cost

of the subject land of Rs.32.00 lakhs.

     9.   There   is   a     suit    pending   between     the

petitioner,   respondents      and    others   in   O.S.   No.

3233/2011 (Annexure-A - copy of the plaint) wherein

one Smt. M. Subbamma has sought her share by

partition of several properties including land in survey

No. 63/1 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas which includes

the alleged karab land of 16 guntas. In the said suit

the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are

defendants. In the said suit there is no averment that

16 guntas of land in survey No. 63/1 is `Raja kaluve'.

Considering all these aspects, the Special Court has

rightly rejected the complaint holding that the subject

land is not a Government land and it is a private land

and there is no encroachment on the Government

- 13 -

land by a private person to attract an offence under

Section 4(3) of the Act. The Special Court considering

the material placed before it has rightly rejected the

complaint of the petitioner. We do not find any

grounds to set aside the orders (Annexure - Z and EE)

passed by the Special Court. The petition is devoid of

merits and hence, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS