The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by land grab accused challenging a conviction and eviction order. The court held the petition did not survive for consideration even on merits.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 52352 OF 2019 (KLGP)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.PANDURANGA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G B MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
WP No. 52352 of 2019
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED IN LGC (G) NO.1563/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION, SPECIAL COURT (COURT HALL-2) AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNX-W AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND VOID-AB-INITIO.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
K. SOMASHEKAR J. , MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel Shri G.B.Manjunatha, for petitioners
is on record and is represented by learned counsel namely
Shri Panduranga Naik, who is present before the Court
WP No. 52352 of 2019
physically. Whereas in this matter, learned counsel who is present before the Court submits that the counsel who is on record is unwell. This submission made by the learned counsel is placed on record.
the writ proceedings against the State who are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the order passed in a proceedings bearing LGC(G) No.1563/2018 dated 04.11.2019 on the file of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru vide Annexure-W as the same is illegal and void ab initio .
before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru relating to the petitioners for grabbing
WP No. 52352 of 2019
the land measuring 1 acre in respect of Sy.No.7 situated in Mugaladapi Village and seeking to punish them under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act’).
also judicial action whether there are any prima facie materials to initiate the proceedings even under the relevant provisions of special enactment. However, in this writ petition, challenge is to the initiation of proceedings in LGC (G) No.1563/2018, wherein the aforesaid proceedings which is initiated by the complainant namely the Tahsildar, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkabalapura District against the accused which was disposed of on 04.11.2019. In the operative portion, it is indicated as “accused Nos.1 to 5 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Act”. It is further indicated that “accused
WP No. 52352 of 2019
Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount by any one of the accused, such of the accused shall further suffer imprisonment for a period of one month”. It is further indicated in the operative portion that “the Tahsildar, Shidlaghatta Taluk shall initiate proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 5 for evicting them from the Government land in Sy.No.7 of Mugaladapi Village, Shidlaghatta Taluk in accordance with Regulation No.39 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition (Special Court) Regulations, 2017”.
of the order passed in LGC (G) No.1563/2018 and more so the contention made by the petitioners whereby the writ proceedings initiated against respondents are concerned, it is stated that issue has been extensively addressed in an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.47747/2017 dated 19.01.2021. However, the civil
WP No. 52352 of 2019
proceedings, in case of filing of the complaint, even when proceedings has been completed, it shall be termed as a criminal proceedings. In a criminal proceedings, conviction has been held and the same has been indicated in the operative portion of the order.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
CA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the conviction and eviction order under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 survives for consideration.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M D RAMAIAH AND OTHERS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE TAHSILDAR SIDLAGHATTA
K. SOMASHEKAR
UMESH M ADIGA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
