Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1039 (KAR)

S. B. Shreedhara Gowda v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-10

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Quash the FIR bearing No.212/2016 and Information dtd. 28/11/2016, registered by the Vinobha Nagar Police Station, Shivamogga, for alleged offences under Sec. 417 and 420 of IPC., vide (Annexure-A and A1). ii. Pass any such order/s as may be necessary in the best interest of justice. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands measuring 400 square meters in Sy.No.31/21 situated at Kallahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimogga Taluk. The said lands were originally owned by one Sri. Syed Bashir and in the year 1975, when it formed a part of a larger extent of land in Sy.No.31. Subsequently, 4 guntas of land measuring approximately 400 square meters was sold by Syed Bashir in favour of M.D.Hayath vide a sale deed dtd. 16/10/1975, phodi and durashti proceedings were carried out and new hissa No.21 was allotted to the land of said M.D.Hayath and came to be numbered as Sy.No.31/21. 3. Later on M.D.Hayath sold the property to the petitioner and the petitioner was in possession of the said property. However, respondent No.2- Shivamogga Municipal Corporation unauthorizedly took possession of the said land without acquisition proceedings and made it part of the Vinobha Nagar Layout in Shivamogga being formed various sites and road in the aforesaid lands. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has questioned the said unauthorized usage of lands and called upon the respondent No.2-Corporation to make payment of the compensation amount. It is alleged that for this reason, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and FIR No.212/2016 came to be registered on 1/12/2016 for the offences punishable under Ss. 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alleging that the petitioner was making false claims as regards the ownership of the land and on that basis, compensation was sought for which is not permissible and these constituting offences under Ss. 417 and 420 of IPC, the FIR came to be registered. It is aggrieved by the said FIR, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Sri. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit by relying upon the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8916/2015 dtd. 417 and 420 of IPC, the FIR came to be registered. It is aggrieved by the said FIR, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Sri. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit by relying upon the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8916/2015 dtd. 14/7/2022 that this Court has come to a categorical conclusion that the land of the petitioner not having been acquired and the petitioner having been made to run from pillar to post from last 10 years in the said proceedings and as such, directed the respondent No.2-Corporation to make payment of cost of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rs. Two Lakhs only), as also to determine the compensation liable to be paid for the land of the petitioner which has been unauthorizedly used by the respondent No.2-Corporation. 6. He submits that the said facts were very much to the knowledge of the respondent No.2-Corporation, at the time when the FIR came to be registered, knowingly fully well that the land of the petitioner had not been acquired, it was for the Corporation to have made payment of the compensation amount but instead of doing so, a false complaint has been registered against the petitioner. In that background, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the relief sought for to be granted. 7. On an earlier occasion, when Sri. Showri H.R., learned Additional Government Advocate was addressing arguments on behalf of the respondents, he was called upon to produce documents to establish whether there was any acquisition and if Sri. M.B.Hayath has consented to the acquisition of the land or if any, alternative land has been allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the land which had been taken over by the respondent No.2-Corporation. He was also put on notice that in the event of no such documents being produced, the Principal, Secretary, Urban Development Department would have to be directed to initiate action against the officers of respondent No.2 for having filed a false complaint against the petitioner. 8. Sri. Showri H.R., learned Additional Government Advocate today submits that there is no such document evidencing acquisition of the land or consent on the part of Sri. M.B.Hayath, he submits that he is unable to place anything on record in relation thereto. 9. 8. Sri. Showri H.R., learned Additional Government Advocate today submits that there is no such document evidencing acquisition of the land or consent on the part of Sri. M.B.Hayath, he submits that he is unable to place anything on record in relation thereto. 9. Be that as it may, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision in W.P.No.891/2015 delivered on 14/7/2022 has categorically gone into these aspects after summoning all records and documents and come to a categorical conclusion that there has been no acquisition of land covered under Sy.No.31/21 and has infact depreciated the defence taken by the Corporation in the said matter in the strongest possible terms and while doing so has imposed cost of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rs. Two Lakhs only) to be payable on or before 21/9/2022. 10. In light of the said findings rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is clear that there is no right in the land bearing Sy.No.31/21 measuring 400 square meters which respondent No.2- Corporation can claim or exercise when the same has not been acquired by respondent No.2-Corporation. Hence, the only conclusion that can be drawn that the complaint which has been filed in FIR No.212/2016 is a motivated complaint filed with the sole intention of harassing a citizen like the petitioner whose land has been used by the respondent No.2 without acquisition. In view thereof, I pass the following: ::ORDER:: i. The FIR bearing No.212/2016 dtd. 28/11/2016 registered by the Vinobha Nagar Police Station, Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sec. 417 and 420 of IPC is hereby quashed. ii. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department is directed to initiate such action which may be necessary against the concerned officers of respondent No.2 who have indulged in filing such false compliant against the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. iii. Though the above proceedings are disposed of, re-list on 10/10/2022 for reporting compliance with the above order. iv. All the pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.