- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 23372 OF 2023 (KLGP) BETWEEN: 1. ADDAGADA PRASAD CHOWDARY S/O HARIPRASAD RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. G2, PEACE COURT APARTMENT, UMA NAGAR,KUNDANBAGH, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD 500 016. 2. M/S. MISTA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.1109, 11th FLOOR, TOWER -B, BRIGADE SIGNATURE TOWERS, OLD MADRAS ROAD, KATTAMANNALLUR, SANNATAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE 562 129 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. BADAM RAMA ANIL KUMAR REDDY …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 1. RAMDAS H., S/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT VTC KONADASAPURA, VIRGONAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 049. 2. TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 041 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT BENGALURU IN CASE BEARING LGC(P) No.316/2023 AND ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 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) Shorn of the pleadings and lengthy arguments at the bar, the short question raised in this petition is as to maintainability of criminal proceedings pending on the file of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru (for short 'Special Court') against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that setting the criminal law in motion is a serious matter vide Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; there is abundant material on record to prima-facie vouch the fact that there is no public lake in the land in question and therefore the question of encroachment - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 would not arise; the record generated at the hands of authorities on account of orders of this court vouch this stand; therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed, regard being had to Apex Court decision in STATE OF HARYANA vs. CH.BHAJAN LAL 1; in any event the on-going construction in the land in question should be allowed to be continued subject to outcome of proceedings in the court below, if at all they are not quashed. 3. Learned HCGP appearing for the official respondent and the learned counsel representing the complainant before the Special Court resist the petition per contra contending: The Revenue Records disclose existence of a lake in the land in question; the entries in the Revenue Records have presumptive value vide Sec.133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; whether there is a lake or not, has to be decided after holding the trial and therefore this court cannot undertake a mini trial and conclude the matter. Ordinarily, the 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, employment of other provision namely, Article 226 notwithstanding, should not interfere. 4. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we grant a limited interference as under and for the following reasons: 4.1 Initiation of criminal proceedings against a citizen cannot be done as a matter of course, as observed in PEPSI FOODS supra; when there is absolutely no material to prima facie implicate a person, the criminal proceedings are liable to be voided, is the view in BHAJAN LAL supra, is also true. The moot question arising in the court below is: ‘Whether there exists a public lake/reservoir in the land in question and the same is encroached by the petitioners…? The above is a pure question of fact as contradistinguished from a question of law or even a mixed question of law & fact. Such a question ordinarily cannot be decided by a writ court without having the view of trial court, more particularly a statutorily established Special Court. It is true that on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 interim orders of this court, some official reports are generated at the hands of authorities and they tend to favour the case of petitioners that there is no public lake/reservoir in the subject land, although there is one in the adjoining lands. The village map and the tippani tend to show the contra. Therefore the vexed question as to the existence of lake/reservoir has to be tried as a preliminary issue so that the jurisdictional fact is established for maintaining the criminal proceedings. That exercise ordinarily has to be undertaken by the Special Court itself, subject to all just exceptions into which the case of the petitioners does not fall. 4.2 Mr.Dhyan Chinnappa is right in expressing the apprehension that while deciding the matter at the stage of taking cognizance, ordinarily what is looked into is the material on record of the complaint and that accused cannot produce his defence material. However, respondents are justified in fairly telling that whatever official reports have been generated or directed to be generated at the hands of jurisdictional authorities can be loaded to the record of the court below and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 be made use of by both the sides whilst considering taking of cognizance of the offence or for dropping the proceedings u/s.9(3) of 2011 Act or for discharge u/s.227 of Cr.P.C.,1973. The report dated 02.01.2025 prepared pursuant to the inspection conducted on 23.12.2024, shall also be part of the record of the complaint. It hardly needs to be stated that both the sides would be heard by the Special Court so that they can adumbrate their respective stand. Such a course would do justice to both the sides. Of course, we hasten to add that this course we are adopting in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case at hand, and with no intent to lay down any broad proposition of law. 4.3 The vehement submission of Mr.Tumbigi, learned counsel representing the complainant in the court below that till the issue of maintainability of the complaint is adjudged, the on-going construction should be halted, does not impress us. Mr. Dhyan is justified in submitting that justice of the case would be served by allowing the on-going construction to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 proceed, than by interdicting it, inasmuch as ordinarily such projects are time bound and that delaying the same would have cost implications. In all fairness, he submits that such a construction that has been permitted to be undertaken by virtue of interim orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches would be subject to outcome of the decision on maintainability of the complaint or the application that may be moved by the petitioners seeking their discharge or for dropping of subject proceedings u/s.9(3) of 2011 Act which broadly approximates to the provisions of Sec.227 of the Cr.P.C. In saying this we have noted the terms such as ‘frivilous’ & ‘vexatious’ employed in Sec.9(3). However, they need not be given a restrictive dictionary meaning. The sages of law have said “Law is not a slave of dictionary”. We also agree with Mr.Dhyan that till a call is taken by the Special Court as to cognizance of the offence, the personal presence of the petitioners, who happen to be businessmen, is not necessary, provided that their counsel appears to represent them in the proceedings. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24-DB WP No. 23372 of 2023 In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy. All contentions of the parties are kept open for being treated at the hands of Special Court preferably within an outer limit of three months. Whatever observations we have made hereinabove being confined to disposal of the writ petition shall not influence the decision making by the court below. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24