Kolera Leela Appanna vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5174 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

                         AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

         WRIT PETITION NO.20202 OF 2021(KLGP)

BETWEEN:
KOLERA LEELA APPANNA,
W/O LATE KOLLERA APPANNA,
AGED 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HANUMANTHA ESTATE,
KUTTA-571 250,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI: N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
         ALONG WITH SMT. SHASHIREKHA M SHETTY.,
         ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
       5TH FLOOR,
       M.S BUILDING,
       DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560 001.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.     THE TAHSILDAR,
       VIRAJPET TALUK,
       VIRAJPET,
       KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA)
                        -------
                                -2-


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT OF R2
FILED IN LGC (G) NO.813/2021 ON THE FILE OF
KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL
COURT,   K.G.ROAD,   BANGALORE,   (CH-1) FILED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID COURT
PRODUCED       HEREWITH      AT    ANENXURE-A,
CONSEQUENTLY THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE SET-
ASIDE.

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA. J,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking for the following reliefs:-

1. quash the entire complaint of 2nd respondent filed in LGC (G) No.813/2021 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, K.G. Road, Bangalore,(Ch-1) filed against the petitioner in the said court produced herewith at ANNEXURE-A, consequently the proceedings may be set-aside.

2. such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claiming to be a coffee planter

in Kodagu District is before this Court being

aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the

respondents under the provisions of the Karnataka

Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 ('Act, 2011' for

short).

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. N. Ravindranath

Kamath representing the petitioner placing reliance

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES v.

GOVERNMENT (NCT Of DELHI) AND OTHERS

reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 submitted that no

show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the

Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District before

initiating proceedings under the provisions of the

Act, 2011. The petitioner has been made to appear

before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition

Special Court, Bengaluru as an accused who indeed

has not encroached any land, as alleged, more

particularly, when she is not in possession of any

land in Kurchi village, Srimangal Hobli, Virajpet

Taluk. The action initiated by the respondents has

caused great hardship to the petitioner, who is a

senior citizen and is owning nearly 50 acres of land in

Kurchi village, Srimangala Hobli, Kodagu District. On

these grounds, learned Senior Counsel seeks to set-

aside the proceedings initiated before the Special

Court and to remand the matter to the respondent

No.2- The Tahsildar, Kodagu District in order to

provide an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth

her case. Thus, learned Senior Counsel submits that

issuance of a show-cause notice by the Tahsildar,

Kodagu District is a mandatory requirement in

compliance of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents supporting the action

initiated by respondent No.2 and the proceedings

before the Special Court submitted that the Special

Court has to act in terms of the provisions of the

Act, 2011. As per section 9, the Special Court is

empowered to take cognizance of and try every case

arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with

respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful

possession of, the land grabbed either suo-moto or on

application made by any person, officer or authority.

The plea made by the petitioner to remand the matter

to the Tahsildar, Kodagu District to hold an enquiry

would be like conducting a mini trial before filing of

an application for adjudication under the provisions

of the Act, 2011, which is impermissible.

Accordingly, seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to

the submissions made by learned counsel appearing

for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. At the out-set, it is significant to note that

constitutional validity of the Act, 2011, as amended

by Act No.30 of 2020 has been declared as valid and

legal by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of SHRIRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA, B.D.A. AND B.B.M.P in

W.P.No.47747/2017 and connected matters disposed

of on 19.01.2021. Under the scheme of the Act, 2011,

section 9 contemplates the procedure and powers of

the Special Courts. The Tahsildar- respondent No.2

in terms of section 9(1) has made an application

alleging act of land grabbing by the petitioner.

Sub-section (3) of section 9 makes it clear that the

alleged acts of land grabbing shall be tried only by

the Special Court constituted for that area in which

the land is situated or where there are more Special

Courts than one for such area, by such one of them

as may be specified in this behalf by the Government

and this provision has come into effect from

10.04.2020. The Special Court shall determine the

area in which the civil and criminal liability against a

land grabber is initiated in terms of sub-section (4) of

section 9. This discretionary power vested with the

Special Court whether or not to deliver its decision or

order until both civil and criminal proceedings are

completed, cannot be curbed at this initial stage as

sought by the petitioner. The object of enacting the

Special Enactment would be defeated if the

proceedings are quashed merely on the hardship or

inconvenience of which, the person alleged to be the

land grabber has to suffer.

7. It is trite law that the object and purport of

the enactment has to be considered rather than the

inconvenience alleged by the petitioner. The judgment

referred to by learned Senior counsel in the case of

GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES (supra) is rendered

in the context of the enlisting/blacklisting of

contractors and in such a situation, it has been held

that it is incumbent on part of the Department to

state in show-cause notice that it intended to impose

a penalty of blacklisting, so as to provide adequate

and meaningful opportunity to show cause against

the same. But under the scheme of the Act, 2011, the

procedure prescribed for initiating proceedings by the

Special Courts does not warrant application to be

preceded by any show-cause notice and enquiry. The

action initiated by the Special Court in conformity

with section 9 cannot be disturbed.

8. If the arguments of learned Senior Counsel

are accepted, it would certainly dilute the procedural

aspects to be followed by the Special Court and it

would be rewriting the Legislation which is not with

in the domain of the courts. It is settled law that the

courts can only interpret the provision, but have no

power to legislate. The constitutional validity of the

Act in its entirety having been held to be valid by the

coordinate bench of this Court, we cannot venture to

introduce special directions to the Tahsildar to

conduct an enquiry before filing an application before

the Special Court. The laudable object of prohibiting

activities of land grabbing and to decide the matters

in an expedite manner would be defeated in giving

such directions to the Tahsildhar. It is the Special

Court alone which has the competency to decide the

land grabbing issues and not the Tahsildar. Hence,

we are not inclined to countenance the arguments

advanced by learned Senior Counsel. With great

respect, we opine that the judgment referred by the

learned Senior Counsel in GORKHA SECURITY

SERVICES supra, is not applicable to the facts of the

present case.

Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition

keeping open all the rights and contentions of the

parties to be urged before the Special Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-