- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:644-DB WP No. 22169 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 22169 OF 2023 (KLGP) BETWEEN: SHRI. B.G. VENKATESH S/O LATE M.P. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/A NO.9, 'A' RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION OFFICES, N.R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WARD NO. 65, OLD NO. 64, MALLESHWARAM DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 003. 3. SRI. H. SHIVARAM S/O LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 31, 9TH CROSS, S.P. EXTENSION, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. 4. REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LAND CRABBING TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R4) Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:644-DB WP No. 22169 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO FOR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU IN LGC.(P).No281/2023 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Challenge in this petition is to the order taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 ('2011 Act' for short) 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client holds a registered sale deed dated 08.08.1960; based on the said sale deed, he obtained orders in Writ Petition No.3775/1983 disposed off on 23.03.1983; that was followed by CCC No.921/1993 disposed off on 21.01.1994; Writ Court has entered a finding as between his client and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) that the petitioner is in the possession of subject property; pursuant to Writ Court order, the Khatha also has been changed on 22.12.1993; that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:644-DB WP No. 22169 of 2023 being the position, the petitioner would neither fit into the definition of 'land grabber' nor his act would answer the definition of 'land grabbing' as provided under the Dictionary Clause of 2011 Act. So arguing, he seeks to falter the cognizance order. 3. Learned HCGP appearing for the fourth respondent and the private Counsel appearing for the complainant before the Special Court who happens to be the third respondent, oppose the petition contending that whether there is act of land grabbing and whether the accused has committed such an act, are pure questions of facts; the factual position as to encroachment of land can be ascertained only after the trial; now cognizance having been taken, stage is set for that the Special Court has granted ex-parte order of temporary injunction against the petitioner; it is open to the petitioner to seek discharge. Therefore, they contend, no interference of this Court is warranted at this stage. 4. Mr.Madhukar Deshpande points out that Special Court has already granted an order of temporary injunction dated 14.08.2023 although ex-parte and the petitioner can seek - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:644-DB WP No. 22169 of 2023 variation of the said order. So contending, they prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are broadly of the view that the petitioner can avail an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of discharge by invoking Section 9 of the 2011 Act read with Section 227 of Cr.P.C.,1973 as we have already observed in similar cases. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is expressing apprehension that ordinarily, the prayer for discharge will be treated keeping in view the material on record of the complaint and therefore, his client will have some constraint in getting justice at the hands of Special Court. Now that the petitioner has produced copies of writ court order and contempt court order pursuant to which there is change of Khatha at the hands of the BBMP. Writ Court makes some observations as to possession of petitioner qua the BBMP in respect of said property. No prejudice would be caused to any one should the petitioner be permitted to place certified copies of these documents on the record of complaint for which we are according leave here itself. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:644-DB WP No. 22169 of 2023 7. The application which the petitioner would be filing within two weeks from this date seeking discharge would be considered on its intrinsic merits keeping in view the evidentiary material on record of the complaint and the Report to be placed by the BBMP and the documents which the petitioner would load to the record of the Special Court as we have observed now. Till such application is heard and decided, personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted upon unless there is extraordinary circumstances in the case. In matters like this we have granted such reprieve petitioner can not be unfavourably discriminated by singling out. In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of, costs having been made easy and all contentions of the parties being kept open including the prayer for rescinding the order of ex-parte temporary injunction. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE YN/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17