B. Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 10449 Kant

Karnataka High Court

B. Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2025

                           -1-
                                    CRL.A No. 102 of 2019


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
    DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                         BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.102 OF 2019

BETWEEN:


B. VENKATESH
S/O BOMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
MEMBER OF CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
C.K.PURA, 11TH CROSS,
CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501.
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 01.
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2018, PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURTS,
AT BANGALORE (COURT HALL -2) IN L.G.C.(T)NO.2329/2017,
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 192(A)(1) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND
SECTION 447 OF IPC.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   18.11.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                           CRL.A No. 102 of 2019


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                           CAV JUDGMENT

Appellant is before this court challenging the order dated

22nd November, 2018, passed in LGC(T) No.2329 of 2017 by

the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts,

Bengaluru "for short, "the Special Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are

referred to as per their status before the special court.

3. The investigating officer submitted Charge-sheet

against the accused for the offence under section 192(A)(1) of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and under section 447

of Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in CC.No.1132

of 2013 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC,

Chitradurga. Thereafter, the case was transferred to special

court and registered in LGC(T) No.2329 of 2007 on the file of

Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts at

Bengaluru.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused has

obtained permission from Department of Mines and Geology for

installation of Stone Crusher in his land bearing Sy.No.94/2 of

Iyyanahalli, Chitradurga Taluk. Instead of installing Stone

Crusher in his land bearing survey No.94/2, the accused has

trespassed into the government land bearing survey No.53

situate by the side of land in survey No.94/2 and installed the

stone crusher in the Government land. It has been further

alleged that the accused was directed to vacate the

government land in survey No.53 several times, but he

continued to be in occupation of government land over an area

of 2 acres and they running a stone crusher. Thus, the accused

committed the alleged offence. Transferor I Additional Civil

judge and JMFC, Chitradurga has framed charges against the

accused for alleged commission of offence. The same was read

over and explained to the accused. Having understood the

same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To

prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined nine

witnesses as PWs1 to 9 and marked eleven documents as

Exhibits P1 to P11 and no material objects were marked. On

closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused

under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded

and the accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

But, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his

behalf. However, the accused has produced copy of the

judgment in Original Suit No.59 of 2013 and the certified copy

of the judgment in Regular Appeal No.24 of 2016. Having

heard the arguments on both sides, the Special Court has

convicted the accused for offence under section 192(A)(1) of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under section 447 of Indian

Penal Code and sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment

for a period of one year and pay fine offer Rs.5,000/-, in

default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer

imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, the Special

Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

section 447 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer

imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by

the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence,

the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Sri R Shashidhara, learned Counsel appearing for

the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment passed

by the special court is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the

established principles of law. He would submit that the case of

prosecution is mainly depending upon the complaint alleged by

the Deputy Tahsildar. The Deputy Tahsildar lodged, the

complaint alleging that the appellant trespassed into the land of

government. But the complainant or the Tahsildar, before

initiating proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, have not at all followed the procedure

contemplated in this behalf. The learned Counsel would further

submit that the Government of Karnataka has issued a circular

stating that before initiating the proceedings under section

192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the concerned officer

should follow Circular. The investigating officer has not

complied with the same. The appellant has filed Suit against

the Tahsildar and others in OS No. 59 of 2013 for permanent

injunction and the said suit came to be dismissed. As against

this judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred appeal in

RA No.24 of 2016 before I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Chitradurga, which thereafter came to be transferred to Special

Court. The special Court has not considered the same. The

concerned authorities have not issued 15 days prior notice

providing an opportunity to the accused to submit his

explanation. The evidence on record reveals that the Tahsildar

has given just three days time to the appellant to submit his

explanation. But the same is also not served to the appellant.

Accordingly, the concerned authorities have failed to follow the

directions issued in the circular issued by the Government of

Karnataka before initiating the proceedings under section

192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. To substantiate his

arguments, the learned counsel has relied on decision of the

Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of SMT. LALITHA

SHASTRI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND

LEGISLATION AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 KAR. 4520

and the judgment of the court in Crl.RP No.915 of 2022 dated

8th July 2025, rendered in the Case of Sri K.K. SURESH v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PONNAMPET POLICE.

6. Sri B Lakshman, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would fairly submit

that the Tahsildar has not issued 15 days prior notice as per

the Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka.

7. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is

necessary to mention here to Point 15.04 of Chapter XV of

Karnataka Land Revenue and Survey Manual, which provides

for Rules for the guidance of Officers and Officials of the

Department, which contemplates that whenever encroachment

is made by the adjoining land holder on the government land,

measurement of encroachment portion is to be made and the

plan sent to revenue authorities so as to take action under

section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. LALITHA

SASTRY (supra) has extracted the Circular dated 08th

September, 2008 issued by the Government of Karnataka,

Revenue Department. The same reads thus:

     "ಸಂ ೆ ಆgï 674 ಎ        © 2008               ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರದ ಸ       ಾಲಯ,
                                                 ಬಹುಮಹ ಗಳ ಕಟ ಡ,
                                                 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.09.2008

                                     ಸು ೊ"ೕ$ೆ

%ಷಯ: ಒತು"ವ*+ಾದ ಸ ಾ * ಜ-ೕನನು/ ೆರವ01ೊ2ಸುವ ಬ1ೆ3

*****

ಸ ಾ * ಜ-ೕನುಗಳ45ನ ಒತು"ವ*ಯನು/ ೆರವ01ೊ2ಸುವ ಸಲು ಾ6 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ8ಾಯ ಾ9:1ೆ ;ದು:ಪ ತಂದು ಕಲಂ 92(ಎ)ರ ಅ ಯ45 ಅಪ>ಾಧಗಳ@ ಮತು"

ABೆಗಳ@ ಎಂಬ Cೊಸ ಅDಾ ಯವನು/ Eೇಪ Fೆ Gಾಡ$ಾ6ರುತ"8ೆ. ಸದ* ;ದು:ಪ ಾ9:ಯನHಯ ಸ ಾ * ಜ-ೕIನ45 ಅನJಕೃತ ಾ6 ಒತು"ವ* Gಾ ೊಂ ರುವವರ %ರುದL MN-ನ Oಕದ:Pಗಳನು/ 8ಾಖಲು Gಾಡಲು ಅವ ಾಶ ಕ4Sಸ$ಾ6ರುತ"8ೆ. ಸದj ಾ9:ಯ ಅ ಯ45 MN-ನ Oಕದ:Pಗಳನು/ 8ಾಖಲು Gಾಡುವ ಮುನ/ ಸಂಬಂJTದವ*1ೆ ಅವರು CೊಂUರುವ 8ಾಖ$ೆಗಳನು/ Cಾಜರು ಪ ಸಲು ಒಂದು ಅವ ಾಶವನು/ (Opportunity) Iೕಡುವ0ದು ಅವಶ ೆಂದು ಸ ಾ ರವ0 ಮನಗಂ 8ೆ.

            ಆದ:*ಂದ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ8ಾಯ                 ಾ9:ಯ ಕಲಂ 192(ಎ)ರ ಅ ಯ45
     ಒತು"ವ*8ಾರರ «ರುದL MN-ನ       Oಕದ:Pಗಳನು/ 8ಾಖಲು Gಾಡುವ ಮುನ/ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ
     Gಾಗ ಸೂ ಗಳನು/ ಅನುಸ*ಸುವಂ ೆ ಸೂ ಸ$ಾ68ೆ:-
                    1. ಸ ಾ * ಜ-ೕನನು/ ಒತು"ವ* Gಾ            ೊಂ ರುವ08ಾ6 ;2ದು ಬಂದ

vÀWಣ ಅಂxÀ ವ M" / ಸಂEೆY1ೆ +ಾವ ಆDಾರದ Pೕ$ೆ ಆ ಸ ಾ * ಜ-ೕIನ EಾHJೕನವನು/ CೊಂUರು;"ೕ* ಎಂಬ ಬ1ೆ3 ;2T, ಅದ ೆZ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ 8ಾಖ$ಾ;ಗಳನು/ ಸೂಕ" %ವರ[ೆ\ಂU1ೆ °TvÀ ರೂಪದ45 15 Uನಗ]ೆ^ ಳ1ಾ6 ಸWಮ _ಾNJ ಾರ ೆZ ತಲು`ಸಲು ;2ಸತಕZದು:.

2. IಗUತ ಅವJ\ಳ1ೆ ಸಂಬಂJTದ ಒತು"ವ*8ಾರರು +ಾವ08ೇ 8ಾಖ$ೆಗಳನು/ ಒದ6ಸ8ೇ ಇದ:45 ಸWಮ _ಾNJ ಾರವ0 IಗJತ ಾ$ಾವJ ಮು6ದ ನಂತರ ಒತು"ವ* ಸYಳ ೆZ bೇc Iೕ 1ಾNಮಸHರ ಸಮWಮದ45 ತI ೆ ನFೆT ಒತು"ವ* ಎಂದು ಕಂಡುಬಂದ45 ಮಹಜd ಬ>ೆದು ಅದ ೆZ Cಾಜ*ದ: 1ಾNಮಸYರ ಸeಗಳನು/ ಪFೆದು ತದನಂತರ ಒತು"ವ*8ಾರರ Pೕ$ೆ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ8ಾಯ ಾ9: ಕಲಂ 192(ಎ)ರ ಯ45 MN-ನ Oಕದ:Pಗಳನು/ 8ಾಖ4ಸಲು ಕNಮ ೆ1ೆದು ೊಳfತಕZದು:.

3. ಒತು"ವj8ಾರರು ೋcೕಸು ಪFೆದ ನಂತರ ಕgೇ*1ೆ bೇc Iೕ 8ಾಖ$ಾ;ಗಳನು/ Cಾಜರುಪ Tದ45 ಆ 8ಾಖ$ಾ;ಗಳ ೈಜ ೆಯನು/ %ವರ[ೆ\ಂU1ೆ ಕೂಲಂಕುಷ ಾ6 ಪ*Aೕ4T, 8ಾಖ$ಾ;ಗಳನು/ ನಕಲು ಅಥ ಾ ಸೃj ತ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡುಬಂದ45 ಒತು"ವ*8ಾರರ %ರುದL ಭೂ ಕಂ8ಾಯ ಾ9: ಕಲಂ 192(ಎ)ರ ಯ45 MN-ನ Oಕದ:P 8ಾಖ4ಸಲು ಕNಮ ೈ1ೊಳfತಕZದು:."

8. As per the said Circular, it is clear that the

Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be

given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land

before any proceedings or initiated under Section 192A of the

Act. In fact, it's a procedure which a show-cause notice used to

be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their

objections within fifteen days. If no objections are received,

authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct mahazar in

the presence of the villagers, obtained their signatures, and

thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied

that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers

producing documents, the authorities shall examine the same

and only in the event of said documents are found to be

fabricated or a duplicate one, to initiate proceedings under the

said Section. In fact, the said procedure contemplated by the

Government satisfy the requirement of principles of natural

justice, i.e. an opportunity is given to the persons to realise

whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are

convinced, to surrender possession to avoid criminal

prosecution.

9. In the case on hand, on perusal of entire material

and record, I do not find any material to show that the

concerned Authority has followed the mandatory provisions of

section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also the

aforesaid Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka.

Without complying the mandatory provisions of Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and also the

Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, the complaint

against this accused is not maintainable. I do not find any legal

evidence to come to the conclusion that the accused has

committed the alleged offence. The trial court has not properly

appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and

facts. Accordingly, I proceed to pause the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed;

ii) Judgment dated 22nd November 2018, passed

in LGC(T) No.2329 of 2017 by the Karnataka

Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at

Bengaluru, is set aside;

- 10 -

iii) Appellant is acquitted of the offence under

section 192(A)(1) of Karnataka Land Revenue

Act and for the Offence punishable under

Section 447 of Indian Penal Code.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

lnn