- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:480 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.42 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI A V VENUGOPAL S/O LATE A G VENKATAPPA AGED 53 YEARS R/AT ADAKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 2. SRI K V HANUMEGOWDA S/O LATE A G VENKATAPPA AGE: MAJOR 3. SRI K V ARASEGOWDA S/O LATE A G VENKATAPPA AGE: MAJOR 4. SRI K V SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE A G VENKATAPPA AGE: MAJOR THE PETITIONER No.2 TO 4 IS R/AT KARLAPURA BYATHA POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 560 088 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVINDRA PRASAD B, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:480 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2024 AND: SRI M BHASKAR S/O SRI H MAREGOWDA AGED 60 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 562162 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A RAVISHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 12.10.2023, ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. PASSED IN LGC(P) NO.436/2019 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, AT BENGLAURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:480 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. In this petition, the order is challenged for rejection of discharge application. The counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the discharge application and ought to have taken note of the very report filed in terms of Annexure-B wherein specific averment is made with regard to Sy.No.8 is concerned the total area is 21 guntas and there is no encroachment. The counsel would vehemently contend that in respect of Sy.No.5 says that though there is encroachment, the same has not been done by the petitioners and the petitioners also not claiming any ownership in respect of the same and to that effect, an affidavit is filed before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court while considering the application particularly in paragraph 12 taken note of the fact that the petitioners are not the owners of he said property and as per the report submitted by the competent authority, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:480 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2024 petitioners have jointly encroached over an area of 5 guntas in Sy.No.5 of Adakamaranahalli village and over an area of 0.04.04 guntas in Sy.No.10 of the said village and also taken note of the averments made in the very application of discharge in paragraph 7 wherein it specifically contend that in order to egress and ingress to their lands, i.e., Sy.No.5 and 12, they have constructed a bridge without obstructing the Rajakaluve for inflow and out flow the water since there is no alternative way to going the said lands except using the said bridge. 4. The Trial Court having taken note of the averments made in the application itself wherein it discloses that the petitioners are not claiming any ownership but constructed the bridge without obtaining prior permission and hence, rejected the application. The scope and ambit of revision is very limited. Hence, it does not require any interference. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties it discloses that the proceedings has been initiated against the petitioners herein under Section 9(1) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:480 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2024 invoked offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Special Enactment wherein specific allegation is made with regard to the grabbing of the property in the complaint itself. The petitioners have produced Annexure-B wherein a direction was given to submit the report in terms of the order of the Tahsildar and also there is a report with regard to the encroachment and construction of bridge to the portion of the property in Sy.No.10 and 5 though report is not in respect of Sy.No.8. While considering the discharge application, the Court has to take note of only the material collected by the concerned competent authority while initiating the proceedings against the petitioners and the defence cannot be considered while considering the discharge application. Apart from that the Trial Court also taken note of the fact that the petitioners are not claiming any ownership over the said survey numbers but the report is clear with regard to the fact of construction of bridge and permission is not taken. The petitioners in the application contend that they are not claiming any ownership over the said property but constructed the bridge. Now the counsel contend that the petitioners have not constructed the said bridge and to prove the said fact, not placed any material before the Court - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:480 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2024 and the same cannot be considered at the time of considering the discharge application. This Court already made it clear that only the material collected by the authority would be looked into while considering the discharge application and the defence cannot be considered. If any such construction was not made by the petitioners as contended by them, the same would be the defence and the said defence would be raised before the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. The scope of revision is also very limited and the Court has to look into the material collected by the concerned competent authority. The Trial Court also while considering the material available on record in paragraph 12 taken note of the report as well as the very pleading of the petitioners wherein also specifically contended in paragraph 7 admitting that in order to ingress and egress to their lands, they have constructed the bridge without obstructing the Rajakaluve and without permission. When such being the material available on record and the reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court taking into note the material available on record, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision to set aside the order of the Trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:480 CRL.RP No. 42 of 2024 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN