Snn Properties LLP Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 25727 OF 2022 (KLGP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SNN PROPERTIES LLP, NO. 4, ELEPHANT ROCK ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 011. (A FIRM INCORPORATED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008) (REP. BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, SRI. SHAH SANJAY)

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SHAH SANJAY, S/O LATE SRI. SHAH SAJJAN RAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO. 4, ELEPHANT ROCK ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE 560 011.

¶11

(BY SRI. GOUTHAM CHAND S F., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002.

¶19

JOINT COMMISSIONER, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE 560 068.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K S MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LGC (S) NO. 2740 OF 2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR LAND GRABBING, BENGALURU AND B. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED IN LGC (S) NO. 2740/2017, AS CONTRARY TO LAW, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW APPLICATION (ANNEXURE-A) FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING DISMISSAL OF THE SUO-MOTO COMPLIANT AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶27

1^st petitioner happens to be a Limited Liability

¶28

Partnership Firm, established under the provisions of

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶30

Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, and 2^nd petitioner

¶31

is one of its partners, managing the affairs of business. They are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 7.12.2022 entered by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru, whereby their application filed u/s.9(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 has been negatived and eventually, the matter would go to the trial.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that setting the criminal law in motion is not a child’s play vide Apex Court decision in M/S PEPSI FOODS LIMITED vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGTISTRATE, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and therefore, only on the basis of a Newspaper Report, the cognizance of offence could not have been taken. He also draws attention of the court to several evidentiary material that would prima facie tend to show that the petitioners are accomplishing the project in question under the orders of Bangalore Development Authority, an entity established under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1978. He also

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶34

argues that, the Special Court has no power to take suo moto cognizance of the offences under the said Act.

¶35

Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BBMP oppose the petition contending that the Special Court has got power to take suo moto cognizance of offence and therefore, cognizance now taken cannot be faltered; further, even on the basis of Newspaper Reports such cognizance can be taken, as has happened in this case; it is open to the petitioners to face the trial and come out untainted by demonstrating their innocence.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶37

the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶38

(a) There is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that ordinarily, no cognizance of offence can be taken only on the basis of Newspaper Reports. It is now well settled that a statement of fact

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶40

contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The question as to admissibility of newspaper reports having been considered by the Apex Court in SAMANTH N.BALAKRISHNA vs. GEORGE FERNANDES, (1969) 3 SCC 238, it is observed as under:

¶41

“ A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is or no value. It is at best a secondhand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible…”.

¶42

(b) True it is, that the court below has treated the subject application of the petitioners u/s 9(3) of the 2011

¶43

Act which employs the expressions like ‘frivolous’ & ‘vexatious’. Such words need not be given the dictionary meaning inasmuch as law is not a slave of dictionaries.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶45

True spirit of the application has to be considered on merits so that the abuse potential of proceedings at the hands of Special Courts like this, is avoided. A careful perusal of this provision approximates it to the provisions of Sec.227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We agree with the contention of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BBMP that the Special Court has discretion to take suo moto cognizance of the offences punishable under the provisions of 2011 Act. However, that does not mean an erratic exercise of discretion is sustainable. Lord Halsbury in SUSANNAH vs. WAKEFIELD [(1891) AC 173] has observed as under:

¶46

"… when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion, according to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular…".

¶47

(c) We notice from the records that the Special Court

¶48

has also acted upon a Report & Sketch dated 23.7.2019 prepared by the Chief Engineer of BBMP. Learned counsel

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶50

for the petitioners is right in telling us that such a report

¶51

ought to have been prepared only after notice to the petitioners as a minimum requirement of principles of natural justice. Biblical literature tells that even God had given an opportunity of hearing to both Adam & Eve before punishing them for eating the forbidden fruit in the Eden Garden. That is the sanctity which civilized jurisdictions attach to these principles. Nothing is forthcoming from the record as to why such an opportunity was not afforded by the author of the Report & Sketch. We hasten to add that we are not laying down a Thumb Rule to be applied in every case regardless of circumstances. In the case at hand, it is demonstrated that the Petitioner Firm is only executing a project work on the orders of BDA. This aspect has not been ascertained by the Special Court, before taking cognizance.

¶52

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; matter is remitted back to the Special Court for consideration afresh, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:86-DB WP No. 25727 of 2022

¶54

The Special Court is requested to grant exemption from personal appearance of the petitioners till after the remand is considered and disposed off in accordance with law.

¶55

Costs made easy.

¶56

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶57

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶58

cbc

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Snn Properties LLP v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snn Properties LLP v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Khazi Iqbal Ahmed Vs Sri Halappa T R @ Halappa

Chairman Vs Smt K Chandrika

Sri Imran Pasha N R Vs the Commissioner

Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Canara Bank

Ganesh v Vs Syndicate Bank