Allowed

Mrs G Chitra Poornima v. State by

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/8073/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging illegal construction and encroachment on B-Kharab land. Holding that no notice preceded the FIR as required, and that cancellation of the land grant had attained finality against the State, the High Court quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.2/2020 of BMTF Police Station pending before the CMM, Bengaluru quashed, with liberty to revive if the State succeeds in its SLP.

Mrs G Chitra Poornima Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO. 8073 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. G. CHITRA POORNIMA

¶8

W/O LATE MR. GEORGE THANGIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT GEORGE THANGIAH COMPLEX (EAST), 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶9

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

MR. VIJAYA SHEKAR THANGIAH S/O LATE MR. GEORGE THANGIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT GEORGE THANGIAH COMPLEX (EAST), 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶11

MRS. RACHEL CHITRA PRABHAKAR W/O MR. SATHI PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT GORGE THANGIAH COMPLEX (EAST), 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SMT. PRIYA KALE, ADVOCATE FOR M/S DUA ASSOCIATES)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK, FORCE POLICE STATION, BBMP MAIN BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, N. R. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO i. QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.03.2020 (VIDE ANNEXURE-B) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FIR DATED 24.03.2020 (VIDE ANNEXURE A) REGISTERED BY THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION (i.e. THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE STATION) IN CR.NO.02/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 192-A OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND SECTION 436A OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR in Crime No.2/2020 registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police Station, now pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 192-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act'), and Section 436A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.

¶28

The case of prosecution is that on the complaint filed

¶29

by the Tahsildar of K.R. Puram, Bangalore East Taluk, the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police Station registered the case against the petitioners. It is alleged that the property bearing Sy. No.2/2 is situated at Manavarthekaval, Binnamangala Post, K.R. puram Hobli, Bangalore East, and out of 3 acres 24 guntas in the said survey number, 0.13 guntas is

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶32

B-Kharab land. Out of 1 acres 6¹ /4 guntas in Sy. No.7/1B, 7/1A3, 7/1A2, 7/1A1, there are 4 guntas of B-Kharab land, and out of 5 acres 1¹ /4 guntas, there are 17 guntas of B-Kharab land. It is further alleged that, in order to preserve the said land, the proposed land should be cancelled and the order of conversion of revenue land should be abandoned. After the order of conversion obtained, the petitioners said to be constructed a compound and commercial building illegally and also said to be encroached the BBMP public road as well as by the land. Therefore, he has requested the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the conversion order and also the land grant order. The complainant also obtained report from the authorities where the petitioners said to be obtained conversion order. Therefore, filed a complaint for taking action against the petitioners. The police filed FIR on the complaint, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that before registering FIR under Section 192-A of the KLR Act and before taking any action against the petitioners, no notice has been issued by the Tahsildar. It is further contended that a request was made by the complainant to the Deputy

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶35

Commissioner to cancel the land, grant order and also the conversion order, which was challenged in Writ Petition No.8972/2020. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed said writ petition on 10.09.2020 by setting aside the order of Deputy Commissioner. The said order of the Co-ordinate Bench was challenged by the State in W.A. No.552/2020, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal 19.04.2021 and the order of the Division Bench has attained finality. The Division Bench has not given the liberty to the State for taking further fresh action for cancellation of the grant of the land. Therefore, continuation of proceedings is abuse of process of law, and therefore, prayed to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. It is contended that though the writ appeal was dismissed, the State has filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, if the State succeeds in the said case, permission may be granted to revive the case. The submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader is placed on record.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records.

¶40

It is the case of the prosecution that the land in question was said to be granted in the year 1970 and the conversion order was also obtained by the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondent declared that the said land was the B-Kharab land and the government was required to take back the land. Therefore, the Tahsildar requested the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the conversion orders and also the grant order. Simultaneously, before cancelling the conversion order, the Tahsildar sent a complaint to BMTF. Prior to registering the FIR, there was no notice issued by the Tahsildar under Section 192-A of the KLR Act. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the this Court in the case of SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA Vs. THE

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in Writ Petition No.18483/2022 decided on 08.12.2022, wherein this Court has taken the contention by relying upon the earlier judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Shiva

¶42

Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka and another in W.P. No.49183/2012 decided on 24.02.2015 wherein the Co-

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶45

ordinate Bench has held that before initiating any proceedings or registering the FIR, notice has to be issued calling for explanation of the petitioners. The Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the proceedings in the said case. In view of the aforesaid order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, initiating the proceedings without issuing notice to the petitioners, is abuse of process of law.

¶46

Apart from that, as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tahsildar requested the Deputy Commissioner for initiating the proceedings and cancelling the grant order and also the conversion order. The same was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition before the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.8972/2020 which came to be allowed on 10.09.2020 by setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The said order was challenged by the State in Writ Appeal No.552/2020 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order of the Coordinate Bench on 19.04.2021 and dismissed the said appeal. Though the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, if the State succeeds in SLP, they may be permitted to revive the order as no liberty was granted by the Division

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:12053 WP No. 8073 of 2020

¶49

Bench for taking a fresh course of action, but, it has been clearly held by the Division Bench that after 45 years of the grant order, initiating the proceedings is not correct and hence, dismissed the appeal and also, no liberty was granted to the State for initiating the action. Further, the learned High Court Government Pleader has also not produced any record to show that the State has preferred the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such being the case, if the State has preferred an SLP and if the Hon'ble Supreme Court set asides the order of the Division Bench, the order will be revived after issuing the notice and the State can take action against the petitioners. Therefore, taking action against the petitioners is nothing but the abuse of process of law.

¶50

Therefore, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.2/2020 registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police Station, now pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT:SK

Mrs G Chitra Poornima v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs G Chitra Poornima v. State by

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

Dr Santosh Gaur Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Athiq Rehman Vs State of Karnataka

Smt T. S. Rukmini Vs Sri. H. N. Venkateshmurthy

Sri B Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

R Mohan Ram Vs T L S Kumar

Smt. Ayesha Begum Vs State of Karnataka