Allowed

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal v. Registrar

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023CRL.P/3628/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka quashed proceedings instituted against a petitioner for alleged encroachment of government land. The court held that case registration was without substance as the authority did not survey the site or pass an order on the petitioner's explanation before submitting the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in LGC No.250/2016 on the file of Special Court for prohibition of Land Grabbing Karnataka are hereby quashed.

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal Vs Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3628 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3628 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR GOWTAM GOPAL RAO KODIKAL SON OF MR.LATE GOPAL RAO KOODIKAL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT KALENA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 076.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SMT. TAMANNA SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AVINASH BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

REGISTRAR SPECIAL COURT FOR PROHIBITION OF LAND GRABBING, KARNATAKA KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:1)QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2017 PASSED ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR PROHIBITION OF LAND GRABBING, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN LGC NO.250/2016 (ANNEXURE-B). 2)QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.12.2016 IN LGC NO.250/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR PROHIBITION OF LAND GRABBING, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A).

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 3628 of 2017

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Tahsildar, Grade-II, Bengaluru South Taluk, filed complaint before the Special Court for Prohibition of Land Grabbing Karnataka. The Special Court directed the Tahsildar to furnish the extent of land grabbed by each one of the person mentioned in his report and the survey number of the land which is grabbed, so that, the Court can take cognizance against each one of the land grabbers mentioned in the report.

¶23

The Special Court without waiting for the report, to be submitted by the Tahsildar, directed the office to register separate cases against each one of the alleged land grabbers as detailed by the Tahsildar in his report dated 04.01.2017, and issued notices to the petitioner herein. Taking exception of the same this petition is filed.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially notice was issued by the Tahsildar concerned on 06.11.2014, calling upon the petitioner to offer explanation, as to whether he has grabbed the extent of 3.35 guntas of Government land in Sy.No.43, to which, the petitioner suitably replied. However,

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 3628 of 2017

¶27

the Tahsildar concerned without passing an order or without conducting the survey so as to ascertain whether, petitioner has grabbed Government land or not, filed the complaint. Hence, in the absence of any material that the petitioner has grabbed the Government land, the registration of the case against the petitioner is impermissible.

¶28

On the other hand, learned HCGP for

¶29

respondent/State submits that report submitted by the Tahsildar clearly indicates that the petitioner has grabbed Government land and the Special Court taking into account the same has rightly registered the case against the petitioner and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶30

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶31

learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Perusal of the order sheet indicates that the Tahsildar concerned was directed to furnish the extent of land grabbed by each one of the persons mentioned in the report and also survey number of the land which is alleged to have been grabbed. Pending consideration of the report to be submitted by the Tahsildar, the Special Court registered the

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 3628 of 2017

¶35

case against the petitioner by considering the report dated 27.12.2016. The Tahsildar before lodging the complaint had issued notice calling upon the petitioner to offer explanation, whether, they have grabbed the Government land to an extent of 3.35 guntas to which petitioner suitably replied stating that, he has not grabbed Government land as alleged in the show cause notice. The Tahsildar concerned without passing an order on the reply submitted by the petitioner or by conducting survey to ascertain, whether the petitioner has actually grabbed the Government land or not submitted the complaint to the Special Court to register the case against the petitioner. In the absence of any material that the petitioner has grabbed the Government land as alleged by the Tahsildar concerned, the registration of the case against the petitioner is without any substance.

¶36

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶39

The impugned proceedings in LGC No.250/2016 on

¶40

the file of Special Court for prohibition of Land Grabbing Karnataka, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 3628 of 2017

¶43

Liberty is reserved with the State Government to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the petitioner, in the event, petitioner has encroached the Government land.

¶44

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in

¶45

view of the disposal of the main matter.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

GPG

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal v. Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal v. Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G P Mallikarjuna Vs Smt G H Sudha

Sri K v Ramesh Babu Vs S Malini

Sri G.R Jagannath Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur Vs the Chief Secretary

S Vishwanath Vs State of Karnataka

J P Nasir Vs State of Karnataka