Allowed

M Govinda Bhat v. Station House Officer

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021WP/54172/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition prayed for quashing of a complaint and First Information Report lodged against the petitioners for allegedly grabbing Government lands. The Court, relying on Govt. Circular guidelines requiring prior notice to establish right of possession, allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The complaint and the First Information Report were quashed. Liberty was reserved to the respondent to comply with the Government Circular and proceed as per law.

M Govinda Bhat Vs Station House Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.54172/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.54172/2016 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

M.GOVINDA BHAT S/O M ACHUTHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

SMT.INDIRA G BHAT W/O M.GOVINDA BHAT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT “MADHUVANA”, MANIMOOLE HOUSE MANILA VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT–574 243 …PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI M.SUBRAHMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

STATION HOUSE OFFICER VITTAL POLICE STATION VITTAL, BANTWALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT–574 243

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU SUB DIVISION MANGALURU – 570 001 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.08.2015 (ANNEXURE-D) FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND THE FIRST INFORMATION

¶18

W.P.No.54172/2016

¶19

¶20

REPORT DATED 24.10.2015 (ANNEXURE –F) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.212/2015 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT, BANTWALA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners are seeking quashing of Annexure-D the complaint dated 06.08.2015 filed by respondent No.2 before Additional Superintendent of Police, Bantwala Sub-Division and Annexure-F the first information report in Crime No.212/2015 of Vitla Police Station which was registered based on Annexure-D.

¶24

The petitioners are husband and wife. Respondent No.2 submitted Annexure-D to Additional Superintendent of Police, Bantwala Sub-Division alleging that in five cases mentioned therein, the accused named

¶25

therein creating false documents have grabbed the Government lands. Petitioners’ names are shown in Annexure-D at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 in respect of NCR:SR:371/91-92 and NCR:SR:420/91-92.

¶26

W.P.No.54172/2016

¶27

¶28

It was alleged that though the petitioners’ family was granted Government’s land suppressing that fact got granted lands bearing Survey No.100/1A1B measuring 3.50 acres and 100/1A1D 3.06 acres of Maanila village, thereby grabbed the Government land.

¶29

The Additional Superintendent of Police referred the said complaint to respondent No.1 police. On that basis, respondent No.1 registered the first information report as per Annexure-F in Crime No.212/2015 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.

¶30

The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-D and F on the ground that they are rightful owners of the property and first information report was registered against them without affording opportunity of hearing as required under Government Circular No.RD 674 LGB 2008 dated 08.09.2008.

¶31

Reiterating the grounds of the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this

¶32

W.P.No.54172/2016

¶33

¶34

Court in Smt.Lalitha Sastry and others vs. State of Karnataka and others¹ .

¶35

Learned HCGP submits that reserving liberty to the State to initiate action in compliance with the above Circular dated 08.09.2008, the petition may be disposed of.

¶36

Chapter XIV-A of the Act was incorporated in the Act by way of amendment under Amendment Act No.15/2007 with effect from 11.12.2006. Section 192-A of the Act which is part of Chapter XIV-A deals with offences and penalties for the offences stated in the table therein. Sl.No.3 of the table appended to Section 192-A of the Act deals with offence of creating forgery of the documents of the Government lands with an intention to grab the same.

¶37

There is no dispute that with an intention to retrieve the Government land from unauthorised possession of land grabbers under the aforesaid Circular, the Government has issued certain guidelines. Guideline No.1 of the said Circular is that whenever the Government

1 ILR 2008 KAR 4520

W.P.No.54172/2016

comes to know about encroachment of the land, competent authority shall issue notice to such encroachers calling upon them to establish their right of possession with the supporting documents. Other guidelines show that thereafter enquiry shall be conducted.

¶42

This Court in Smt.Lalitha Sastry’s case referred to supra referring to the Government Circular dated 08.09.2008 in the similar circumstances held that the first information report registered without issuing such notice is bad in law and quashed the same. This matter is covered by the said judgment. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶43

The complaint as per Annexure-D and the first information report as per Annexure-F are hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to comply with Government Circular No.RD 674 LGB 2008 dated 08.09.2008 and to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

KSR

M Govinda Bhat v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Govinda Bhat v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rakshith J Perikal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula A.B Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmukhappa D Vs State of Karnataka

Christian Chidiebere Chukwu Vs the State

Mohammed Farooq Ur Rahaman Vs State by Udayagiri Police Station

Sri Nandakumar a Vs Mrs Purnima J