Prestige Estates Private Projects Limited Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Prestige Estates Private Projects Limited Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Crl.P.Nos.6184/2023, 8786/2023, 8982/2023 and 8790/2023 under S.482 Cr.P.C allowed; the entire proceedings in LGC (P)1298/2018 on the file of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru quashed so far as these accused (Nos.1 to 10) are concerned; respondent-BDA at liberty to proceed against accused Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law for having misled it, if so advised; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the trial court through e-mail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings initiated in LGC(P)1298/2018 against accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 (developers/partnership side) are liable to be quashed in view of prior adjudications that accused Nos.3 and 4 had lost their right, title and interest over the subject lands. +1 more

Court's answer

The allegations by the respondent (BDA) against accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 are not tenable: despite losing title in favour of the partnership firm and receiving Rs.5.75 crores on retirement, it is accused Nos.3 and 4 who played mischief and claimed continuing ownership; accordingly the petition qua accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 is liable to be quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Although accused Nos.3 and 4, no longer owners, misled BDA in securing plan sanction and executing the Relinquishment Deed and thereby misled BDA into filing the complaint, they do not come under the definitions of 'land grabber' or 'land grabbing' under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Act; therefore they cannot be proceeded against under the Act and the criminal proceedings against them are liable to be quashed, with BDA left at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law for the misleading.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (J.M. Khazi, J.), common order dated 24.06.2025 in Crl.P.Nos.6184, 8786, 8790 and 8982 of 2023 (S.482 Cr.P.C): Allowed quashing of proceedings in LGC(P)1298/2018 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru, arising from BDA's complaint dated 02.08.2018 under S.9 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 alleging grabbing of 10,053 sq.mtrs of CA/parking/garden area relinquished by Registered Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2000. Petitioners stood as accused Nos.2, 1 and 9 (Crl.P.6184 - Prestige Estates, Highland Enterprises, Irfan Razack), No.5 (Crl.P.8786 - K.L. Swamy), Nos.3 and 4 (Crl.P.8982 - Kalavathi and V.S. Balasubramanyam) and No.10 (Crl.P.8790 - Rezwan Razack). Held: (i) erstwhile owners accused Nos.3 and 4 had contributed the subject lands (Sy.No.125 Hosakerehalli; Sy.No.43 Ittamadu) to the partnership (Highland Enterprises) in 1988, secured the 22.01.1999 plan sanction and executed the 28.07.2000 Relinquishment Deed without the other partners' consent and never acted on it, and retired on 22.05.2004 on receiving Rs.5.75 crores in full and final settlement; their suit O.S.No.4030/2009 was dismissed on 30.07.2012 holding they had lost right, title, interest and possession (RFA.No.1495/2012 pending); their BMTF complaint Cr.No.66/2014 ended in an unchallenged 'B' report (25.08.2014); and their W.P.Nos.6450-6451/2013 were dismissed on 05.06.2015 holding they had no right in the subject lands; hence the land-grabbing allegation against accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 is not tenable and the proceedings against them are quashed; (ii) although accused Nos.3 and 4 misled BDA in obtaining plan sanction, executing the Relinquishment Deed and consequently in the filing of the complaint, they do not answer the definitions of 'land grabber' (S.2(e)) or 'land grabbing' (S.2(f)) and cannot be prosecuted under the Act; their proceedings are also quashed, with liberty to BDA to proceed against them in accordance with law. W.P.No.47747/2017 and connected matters (19.01.2021) had upheld the Act's validity while directing individual examination of accused persons' claims.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.09.2018 passed in LGC(P)No.1298/2018 taking cognizance of the complaint filed by BDA under S.9 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and issuing notice.¶134
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, at Bengaluru (Court Hall No.1) · 12.09.2018
Prior proceeding
Complaint dated 02.08.2018 issued by BDA under S.9 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 against accused Nos.1 and 2 in LGC(P)No.1298/2018 before the Special Court, alleging willing grabbing of 10,053 Sq.mtrs belonging to BDA.¶132
Prior proceeding
Accused Nos.3 and 4 obtained approval of development plan for group housing from BDA vide Resolution dated 22.01.1999.¶108
Prior proceeding
Registered Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2000 executed in favour of BDA to an extent of 10,053 Sq.mtrs for CA and parking/garden; alleged illegal construction over the said extent.¶109
Prior proceeding
On 23.12.1988 accused Nos.3 and 4 entered into partnership with L.K. Trust constituting accused No.1 (Highland Enterprises) and contributed the subject lands as their investment; on 22.05.2004 they retired receiving Rs.5.75 crores in full and final settlement, losing ownership.¶112
Prior proceeding
Accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into a Joint Development Agreement; registered GPA dated 23.09.2005 by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2; BBMP plan sanction obtained on 18.05.2007; construction completed 29.06.2011 with partial occupancy certificate; occupation certificate issued by BBMP on 20.04.2017.¶116
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.4030/2009 by accused Nos.3 and 4 for declaration that the JDA is not binding and for mandatory injunction dismissed on 30.07.2012 on the ground that they lost right, title, interest and possession over the subject land; RFA.No.1495/2012 pending.¶122
Prior proceeding
Complaint Cr.No.66/2014 filed during 2014 by accused Nos.3 and 4 with BMTF alleging encroachment; after detailed investigation 'B' report filed on 25.08.2014; not challenged by them.¶122
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 01.10.2014 by the Commissioner of BDA enumerating facts and requesting BMTF to take action against accused Nos.3 and 4 for trying to mislead.¶156
Prior proceeding
W.P.Nos.6450-6451/2013 filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and BDA came to be dismissed on 05.06.2015 holding they have no right in the subject lands; Division Bench observed it was private litigation given the colour of public interest litigation.¶127
Prior proceeding
On 17.12.2018 accused Nos.2 and 1 filed W.P.No.56542-56539/2018 challenging the constitutionality of the Act and the cognizance order; clubbed with W.P.No.47747/2017; on 19.01.2021 the Act was upheld with a direction to the Special Court to individually examine the claims of accused persons for dismissing/dropping proceedings.¶134
Prior proceeding
On 10.03.2021 accused Nos.1, 2 and 9 filed application under S.9(5) of the Act for dismissing/dropping the proceedings in LGC(P)No.1298/2018; statement of objections filed by complainant on 22.04.2022; the Special Court secured presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and arraigned accused Nos.3 to 10.¶136