Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1280 (KAR)

Rajesab v. State of Karnataka

2022-09-26

J.M.KHAZI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused, has sought for quashing of criminal proceedings in LGC(G) 7523/2021 for the offences p/u/s. 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (for short "the Act) on the file of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bangalore. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is cultivating land bearing Sy.No.237 measuring 4 Acres, situated at Kanavalli village, since 1999. He has filed application in Form No.53 under Rule 108 (CC) (1) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') before the Committee for Regularization of Un- authorised Cultivation of Land, Haveri. After conducting spot inspection, the concerned officer has directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the cultivators column. His request for entering his name in the RTC is pending. When such being the case, the Tahsildar, Haveri, has filed a complaint before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bangalore. Being aggrieved by the same, he has come up with this petition under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Respondent has appeared through the HCGP. 4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that when petitioner has filed application in Form No.53 for regularization of his unauthorized occupation of land in question, the complaint is not maintainable. The spot inspection reveal that petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land since 1999. Even before he could get report as to whether the land belongs to Forest Department, the respondent has chosen to file a complaint, which is not maintainable. 5. On the other hand, learned HCGP drawn the attention of this Court that the alleged regularization of the possession of the petitioner is subject to verification as to whether the land in question belongs to Forest Department and it is for the complainant to prove the allegations at the trial and in the light of prima facie material, no interference could be made under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. and prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard arguments and perused the records. 7. Undisputedly, petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of 2 acres 5 guntas out of 5 acres in Sy.No.237 of Kanavalli village, Karajagi Hobli of Haveri Taluk. Though he has approached the prescribed authority for regularization of the same, the proceedings dtd. 482 of Cr.P.C. and prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard arguments and perused the records. 7. Undisputedly, petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of 2 acres 5 guntas out of 5 acres in Sy.No.237 of Kanavalli village, Karajagi Hobli of Haveri Taluk. Though he has approached the prescribed authority for regularization of the same, the proceedings dtd. 28/4/2003 of the Committee state that the regularization would be subject to verification as to whether the land in question belongs to the forest department. It is for the prosecution to establish the allegations against the petitioner at the trial. Of course, petitioner would get opportunity to prove his defence. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to interfere under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result the petition, fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.