Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 906 (KAR)

T. S. Vani v. Vishwabrahmachar

2013-08-12

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2013
Judgment : 1. Though the matter is listed today for orders on the application filed for early hearing, by consent of both the sides, matter is heard for final disposal. 2. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought for quashing the private complaint filed by respondent No.1 in PCR No.64/2011 and the order passed therein taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as also the order issuing summons to her in C.C.No.8/13. 3. 2. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought for quashing the private complaint filed by respondent No.1 in PCR No.64/2011 and the order passed therein taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as also the order issuing summons to her in C.C.No.8/13. 3. Respondent No.1 filed private complaint inter alia alleging that 20 acres of coffee land in Sy.No.156 of Kadur Village in Bankal Hobli, Mudigere Taluk was granted to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur on 25.5.1986 and after the grant of the land, complainant took possession of the same, obtained saguvalli chit and thereafter planted coffee crop in the said property; that since the boundaries of the property granted to him was not clear, complainant requested the then tahasildar to identify the land and the said tahasildar directed the Taluka Surveyor arrayed as accused No.2 to identify the land and to grant a sketch to the complainant; that while the sketch was being done after phody the land, it was found that the husband of accused No.1 (petitioner herein) has illegally occupied about 10 acres of land in Sy.No.156 and out of that 6 acres belonged to the complainant and remaining extent of 4 acres is Government Land; that the survey also revealed that accused No.1 had encroached 5 acres of Government Land in Sy.No.156; that after the receipt of the sketch, complainant filed a writ petition before the High Court in Sy.No.156, which came to be allowed on 4.12.2008 directing the ADLR, Chikmagalur to measure the land and identify the land granted to the complainant; that on 18.10.2008, the complainant gave a petition to the Tahsildar, Mudigere to prepare a sketch pertaining to the land granted to him and subsequently, on 17.1.2009, he gave a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur to measure and identify the boundary pertaining to the property that has been granted to him on 20.5.1986; that the then Tahsildar and accused No.2 colluded with the accused No.1 and also with her husband in grabbing the government property; that the survey conducted in the year 2006 clearly indicates that accused No.1 and her husband have unauthorizedly occupied 10 acres of Government land in Sy.No.156 and in respect of the same, no action has been taken against them and thus, the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 4. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint came to be presented took cognizance of the offences, recorded sworn statement of the complainant and since accused No.2 is a public servant, was of the opinion that unless sanction is obtained under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 cannot be prosecuted. Therefore, the learned Magistrate directed registration of the case only against accused No.1, the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 192-A & 192-B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and ordered issue of summons to her. 5. On coming to know of the same, petitioner has presented this petition inter alia on the ground that the order taking cognizance as well as issuance of summons to her is without jurisdiction as the procedure adopted is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Lalitha Sastry vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4520. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint presented before the learned Magistrate and the orders passed thereon are without any jurisdiction and contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid decision. 7. Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 deals with the offences relating to the Government lands. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant was granted 20 acres of land and on survey of the land, it was revealed that husband of the accused No.1 has encroached the land to an extent of 6 acres belonging to the complainant and 4 acres belonging to the Government. If according to the complainant, 6 acres of land granted to him has been encroached upon by the petitioner or her husband, that portion of the land ceases to be the Government land, in which event no prosecution can be brought for the offences punishable under Section 190-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. With regard to the allegations of encroachment of Government Land, it is for the revenue authorities to take appropriate action in the matter. This Court in the case of Lalitha Sastry's case referred to supra, after referring to the Government order issued on 8.9.2008 has held that the Government Order stipulates a procedure to be adopted before initiating prosecution under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This Court in the case of Lalitha Sastry's case referred to supra, after referring to the Government order issued on 8.9.2008 has held that the Government Order stipulates a procedure to be adopted before initiating prosecution under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. According to this procedure, show cause notice has to be given calling upon the alleged encroachers to file their objections within 15 days and if no objections are received, authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct a Mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192-A of the Act. 8. In the case on hand, no such show cause notice appears to have been issued by the authorities alleging encroachment of the Government land nor any prima facie finding is recorded that the Government land has been encroached upon illegally by the petitioner herein. 9. In this view of the matter, private complaint lodged by respondent No.1 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was not competent. The learned Magistrate though has referred to the provision of Section 192-A of the Act and has noticed that it relates to encroachment of Government land, nevertheless has totally ignored the procedure to be adopted as laid down in the aforesaid decision before initiating the prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Act. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, the complaint lodged by respondent No.1 before the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction and the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and ordering issue of summons to the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 192-A is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision. 11. In this view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, Petition is allowed. 11. In this view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, Petition is allowed. The order taking cognizance of the offence and the order dated 2.1.2013 directing registration of criminal case and issuing summons to the petitioner in PCR No.64/11 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere (C.C.No.8/13) are hereby quashed. The private complaint lodged by respondent No.1 in PCR No.64/11 is also hereby quashed.