Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1125 (KAR)

Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka

2017-08-07

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2017
ORDER : SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed in public interest drawing the attention of the Court that large amounts of Government lands have been encroached and they are required to be recovered. 2. These matters are pending for quite some time. Reports were filed. One report was filed on June 30, 2011 and the other two interim reports were filed on February 14, 2007 and June 26, 2007. The first report was filed under the Chairmanship of Mr. V. Balasubramanian and the other two interim reports were filed by the Chairman, Joint Legislature Committee of the Karnataka Legislature. 3. It is a burning issue and must be dealt with seriously. The Government of Karnataka, in order to recover the "grabbed lands", promulgated the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short 'the said Act') and introduced a mechanism for recovery of those lands. 4. We feel that when there is a machinery for factual investigation, these writ petitions should be closed by granting liberty to the writ petitioners and any other person concerned in the matter to approach the Land Grabbing Court, constituted under the said Act, pointing out grabbing of the Government lands. 5. We had appointed two Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. M. Shivaprakash, learned Advocate. Liberty is granted to them to draw the attention of the Land Grabbing Court concerned about the land grabbing and we request the said Land Grabbing Court, if necessary, to take assistance of the said learned Advocates. 6. The reports, which are on the file, are to be placed before the Land Grabbing Court. Therefore, we direct the Registry to prepare copies of those reports and handover the copies to the learned Amicus Curiae and to the learned Advocates appearing for the State to enable them to produce the reports before the Land Grabbing Court. 7. If the reports are placed before the Land Grabbing Court, the Land Grabbing Court shall consider the reports in accordance with law. 8. Mr. S. Basavaraj, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15511 to 15514 of 2013, submits that the Government had constituted a special investigation team to identify those lands but, subsequently, the special investigation team was disbanded. He submits that this Court should pass a direction to revive the special investigation team. 9. 8. Mr. S. Basavaraj, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15511 to 15514 of 2013, submits that the Government had constituted a special investigation team to identify those lands but, subsequently, the special investigation team was disbanded. He submits that this Court should pass a direction to revive the special investigation team. 9. The learned Advocate General appears and submits that when there is a proper mechanism under the Statute, it is not necessary to have a special investigation team. He submits that when there is any land grabbing, the attention of the Court could be drawn by any individual and even the Court itself can initiate suo motu proceedings for recovery of those lands. 10. Therefore, we are unable to accept the request of Mr. Basavaraj for revival of the special investigation team, which has been disbanded by the Government. 11. The writ petitions stand disposed of. 12. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, disposed of. 13. We make no order as to costs.