- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32349 CRL.RP No. 777 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.777 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. L. SUNDARI @ L. SUNDRAMMA, W/O LATE O.M.LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/A NO.100, SHOLUR HOUSE, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H.R. PRADEEP, SINCE DEAD. 1. TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562106. 2. SRI. MURARI SHARMA, S/O SEETHARAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. SRI. NARESH SHARMA, S/O SEETHARAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32349 CRL.RP No. 777 of 2026 RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO 16/2, SHEETHAL MARBLE CENTRE, BEGIHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.06.2026, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A NO.2 IN LGC (P) NO.12416/2021 INSOFAR AS IT REJECTS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 OF THE CR.PC. AND TO ALLOW THE I.A NO.2 FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.PC IN LGC(P) NO.12416/2021 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 4(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT, 2011. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 2. This revision petition is filed against the order of rejection of the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner herein has contended that she had purchased the property in the year 1967 and also produced the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32349 CRL.RP No. 777 of 2026 RTC extract, which clearly discloses that the property is having 1 gunta of kharab i.e., ‘A’ kharab and not encroached any property and the property is only the property which the petitioner had purchased. Objections were filed before the Land Grabbing Court opposing the application, wherein it is contended that the same is ‘A’ kharab land belonging to the State. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the report given by the Tahsildar and the sketch. The sketch clearly discloses that this property belongs to the private persons, but contend that it is ‘A’ kharab and there is an existence of pond. But the very Tahsildar report clearly discloses that in respect of this petitioner is concerned, the total area of the property is 22 guntas and 1 gunta ‘A’ kharab and excluding the ‘A’ kharab total is 21 guntas. The Tahsildar, who has been secured before this Court submits that the same is ‘B’ kharab and the same is not supported by any documentary proof. It is not in dispute that this property is owned by the private persons. When ‘A’ kharab is shown in the RTC and the same is attached to the owner of the property, the Land Grabbing Court fails to take - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32349 CRL.RP No. 777 of 2026 note of the said fact into consideration. Though the Land Grabbing Court raised the point for consideration as to whether I.A.No.2 filed on behalf of accused No.3 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed, while rejecting the application in paragraph No.15, it is stated that accused No.3 has encroached 1 gunta of Government kunte land and accused Nos.1 and 2 have encroached 2 guntas of Government kunte land. In paragraph No.16, an observation is made that there is no dispute that accused No.3 is the owner of the property to an extent of 21 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.16/1, which she has purchased under registered sale deed. It is allegation of the complainant that the accused have purchased the respective properties have encroached kharab land which is kunte land. Whether the accused have encroached kunte land as alleged by the complainant and whether the accused are in possession of the property only to the extent which they have purchased under the registered sale deeds are to be considered only after full-fledged trial. That reasoning cannot be accepted when the very report of the Tahsildar is very clear in respect of Sy.No.16/1 is concerned that RTC clearly discloses that the same is ‘A’ kharab land and the question of continuing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32349 CRL.RP No. 777 of 2026 proceedings against the petitioner before the Land Grabbing Court does not arise. The same was lost sight by the Land Grabbing Court and fails to take note of the pahani, which was produced along with the report, which clearly discloses the same is a phut kharab ‘A’ land. Under the circumstances, the question of considering the trial does not arise and the very documents of the Revenue Department is very clear that it is ‘A’ kharab land and though the Tahsildar claims as ‘B’ kharab, but revenue records of pahani is very clear that it is ‘A’ kharab and not ‘B’ kharab. Under the circumstances, the rejection of the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is erroneous. The Land Grabbing Court fails to take note of the document and ‘A’ kharab property is attached to the owner and not Government and the Government cannot claim the right in respect of ‘A’ kharab property. 4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32349 CRL.RP No. 777 of 2026 (ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2 filed before the Trial Court invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the revision petitioner is set aside by discharging the revision petitioner. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25