1 Reserved on : 25.06.2026 Pronounced on : 07.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.24242 OF 2017 (GM - RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.16306 OF 2017 (GM - RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.24242 OF 2017 BETWEEN: B.H.NARAYANAPPA S/O HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, DAVANAGERE – 577 501. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 500 001. R Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 2 . KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. (SUBSTITUTED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.11.2022) 3 . SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL ZONE, BENGALURU – 500 001. 4 . INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 561 207. 5 . SRI R.VENKATARAMANA S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT SONNASHETTIHALLI, 2ND MAIN, CHINTAMANI TOWN – 563 125. CHIKKABALLAPURA. 6 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 563 125. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1 AND R-6; SRI VENKATESH ARBATTI, SPL.PP FOR R-2 TO R-4; SMT.KEERTHI REDDY, A/W SRI MAYUR D.BHANU AND SRI PADMANABHA J., ADVOCATES FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY 3 ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO.ACB/CBP/PETITION/02/2016 DATED 20.6.2016 ISSUED BY R-4 AT ANNEX-B; QUASH THE FIR NO.4/2017 DATED 11.4.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED HON'BLE DISTRICT SESSION & SPL. COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE-C SO FOR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.16306 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI CHOWDAREDDY S/O LATE ANJANEYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALAPALLI, CHINTAMANI TOWN – 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY SPP DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 4 3 . SRI R.VENKATARAMANA S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT SONNASHETTIHALLI, 2ND MAIN, CHINTAMANI TOWN – 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 04.08.2023) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, SPL.PP FOR R-2; SMT.KEERTHI REDDY, ADVOCATE A/W SRI MAYUR D.BHANU AND SRI PADMANABHA J., ADVOCATES FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D DATED.11.4.2017 IN CRIME NO.4/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT SESSIONS AND SPECIAL COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(c)(d) OF PC ACT AND SECTION 447 R/W 34 OF IPC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 5 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners, in both these cases, are different accused in the same crime in Crime No.4 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and Section 447 r/w 34 of the IPC. 2. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: - IN W.P.No.16306 of 2017: 2.1. The petitioner/accused No.1 was said to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly. A complaint comes to be registered by the 3rd respondent on 24-04-2016 alleging criminal conspiracy and allied offences against the petitioner, one M.C. Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar and the then Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Chintamani, Sub-Registrar and several other public servants. The criminal law thus gets into motion by the said complaint. The complaint was made to the then Anti-Corruption Bureau (‘ACB’), 6 presently the Karnataka Lokayukta. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.4 of 2017. Registration of crime has immediately driven the petitioner in the subject petition as well as the petitioner in the companion petition to the doors of this Court. On 20-04-2017 a coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice regarding rule granted ad-interim order of stay insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The Court also directed that the matter to be listed after summer vacation and observed that the petitioner shall fully cooperate in the investigation. IN W.P.No.24242 of 2017: 2.2. The petitioner in the case at hand is accused No.2 in Crime No.4 of 2017. The complaint is common in both the cases. Registration of complaint and the consequent crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. No interim order is operating in this case. In view of the interim order operating in the companion petition, no investigation has taken place with respect to FIR in Crime No.4 of 2017. 7 3. Heard Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16306 of 2017, Sri B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.24242 of 2017, Sri Thejesh, P, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.16306 of 2017 and respondents 1 and 6 in Writ Petition No.24242 of 2017, Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 2 to 4 in both the writ petitions and Smt. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.16306 of 2017 and respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.24242 of 2017 in both the writ petitions. 4. For the sake of convenience the petitioner in W.P.No.16306 of 2017 would be referred as petitioner No.1 and likewise, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.24242 of 2017 as petitioner No.2 in the course of this order. The other parties would be referred to, as obtaining in the writ petitions. 8 SUBMISSIONS: PETITIONERS: IN W.P.No.16306 OF 2017: 5.1. The learned senior counsel Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy appearing for petitioner No.1/accused No.1 would contend that the complaint so registered by the complainant before the ACB is a product of political rivalry between the two. There is no substance in the complaint. It is the allegation that sons of petitioner No.1 one M.C.Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar have played certain role along with their father/petitioner No.1 in knocking of a property belonging to Government in Sy.No.11 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas situate at Kannampalli village, Chintamani Taluk and have formed sites and sold them as if it is their property. The learned senior counsel submits that it is only to bring a black mark to the unimpeachable career of petitioner No.1, the crime has been registered. Petitioner No.1 himself has on more than one occasion offered that if there is any encroachment of Government land, he would give up the land or give alternate land. In the light of there being no encroachment in the case at hand or petitioner No.1 and his sons being entitled to 9 keep the land on the plea of adverse possession, the very crime registered that too for offences under the Act is wholly untenable. 5.2. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that on the date of the complaint neither petitioner No.1 nor his son was holding the position of a Member of Legislative Assembly. Therefore, the offences under the Act cannot be laid against a former Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Member of Parliament, as the case would be. The complaint is made on 24-04-2016 preliminary investigation report was conducted on 20-06-2016 and the case is registered on 11-04-2017 after almost a year and, therefore, the crime must be quashed. It is his submission that petitioner No.1 was shown as cultivator in respect of Sy.No.11 for the years 1966-67 to 1986-87 and therefore, there is no warrant for registration of crime on the alleged act that petitioner No.1 had knocked of Government property, converted it as sites and sold them. 10 IN W.P.No.24242 OF 2017: 6. The learned counsel Sri B.K. Manjunath appearing for accused No.2 would submit that petitioner No.2 worked as Commissioner, City Municipal Council from June 1998 to July 2000 and on 4-07-2015 a show cause notice is issued to him stating that he has illegally registered the Government Kharab land bearing Sy.No.11 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his sons. It is his submission that petitioner No.2 has nothing to do with the allegations made. The complaint simply names petitioner No.2 who was on the verge of his retirement. Petitioner No.2 has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2020 and today if investigation would be permitted on a complaint which has nothing against him, it would cause grave prejudice to this petitioner. He would submit that accused No.2 is getting into the web of controversy for an alleged political rivalry between the petitioner in the companion petition, his family and the complainant. 11 COMPLAINANT IN COMMON: 7.1. Contrariwise, the learned counsel Smt. Keerthi Reddy representing the complainant would threadbare refute the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by taking this Court through the existing documents collected and placed before the Court, at the time of hearing of the matter. According to the learned counsel in 1965-66 land in Sy.No.11 of Kannampalli Village, Chinthamani Taluk measuring 1 acre 19 guntas is shown as Hullu Banni Kharab in the RTC. In the year 1989 Sri Chowdareddy/petitioner No.1 was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Chinthamani constituency. After the election, it appears the land in Sy.Nos. 12 and 13 which were allegedly owned by his family was sought to be converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes. An application is made to the Assistant Commissioner in this regard. The land is converted but while getting it converted, petitioner No.1 and his family have taken away Sy.No.11, the Government land, as land belonging to them. 12 7.2. An unregistered General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) then comes to be executed by M.C.Balaji, son of petitioner No.1 in favour of Government Employees House Building Cooperative Society. On the strength of the GPA, the President and the Secretary of the said Society executed sale deeds in favour of several persons and several sites out of them are in the name of M.C. Balaji, son of Chowdareddy, petitioner No.1. Several sites further formed and sold. She would further contend that the complainant comes to be elected as a Councilor of Chinthamani Municipal Corporation. He then found huge foul play and land grabbing by the family of accused No.1. First communication springs resulting an enquiry and then the impugned complaint. It is not that the complaint has sprung from air. All materials were available prior to registration of complaint itself. The learned counsel would submit that in terms of Rule 21(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, a ‘B’ kharab land can never become the property of any person occupying it. It can used only for the purposes that are enumerated under the Rules. The learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petitions contending that the matter requires investigation in the least and for the last 9 years the investigation is stalled, in a case that 13 concerns grave public interest, as government land is grabbed by the petitioner No.1 and family. LOKAYUKTHA: 8. The learned counsel Sri Venkatesh S.Arbatti representing the Lokayukta would contend that after the complaints were received a preliminary enquiry, as obtaining in law, was conducted and it was found that 1 acre 19 guntas was allegedly knocked of by the family of accused No.1 and, therefore, it was opined that crime should be registered on the said allegation. He would also seek dismissal of the petitions and conduct of investigation on the ground that allegation was made out. 9. The learned senior counsel Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy would join issue in contending that the documents produced by the respondents would not lead to any allegation or ingredients of crime. Accused No.1 has an unimpeachable career in politics and political rivalry is sought to be projected to become a crime. Therefore, the matter must not be permitted to be investigated. 14 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. CONSIDERATION: 11. Before this Court ventures into the core issue in the lis whether the investigation in the case at hand deserves to be interdicted, at its threshold or permitted to take its lawful course, it becomes necessary to undertake a brief but journey into the history of the land that forms the epicentre of the present controversy, for, the story of the crime does not commence with the complaint; it begins much earlier, buried in revenue records, concealed in transactions, and ultimately surfacing through the tell-tale footprints of alleged encroachment by accused No.1 and his sons M.C.Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar. 15 THE FOOTPRINTS: 12. Certain facts stand admitted and, therefore, beyond the realm of controversy. During the year 1965–66, land measuring 1 acre 19 guntas in Survey No.11 of Kannampalli Village, Chintamani Taluk, stood classified in the Record of Rights as Hullu Banni Kharab. The RTC produced before this Court bears eloquent testimony to this fact. More significantly, the revenue entries from 29-09-2021 till 2026 continue to reflect the very same classification. Column No.9 of the RTC would read as follows: 16 The record of rights of the very land from 29-09-2021 till 2026 with respect to column No.9 reads as follows: When the revenue records of 1965–66 are placed shoulder to shoulder with those of 2026, one incontrovertible truth emerges with remarkable clarity is, the character of Survey No.11 has remained immutable. Time has marched forward, governments have changed, offices have changed hands, 17 political fortunes have risen and fallen—but Survey No.11 has remained what it always was: Government Hullu Banni Kharab land. 13. Accused No.1 came to occupy a position of political power, upon being elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in 1989. It is during this period of political relevance that events begin to assume significance. The information about his election and the term is as follows: ““““ಸಂೇಧ ಾ ಸಂೇಧ ಾ ಸಂೇಧ ಾ ಸಂೇಧ ಾ ಮತು ಮತು ಮತು ಮತು ಉೇಖ ಾ ಉೇಖ ಾ ಉೇಖ ಾ ಉೇಖ ಾ ಾೆಯ ಾೆಯ ಾೆಯ ಾೆಯ ಲಭರುವ ಲಭರುವ ಲಭರುವ ಲಭರುವ ಾಯಂೆ ಾಯಂೆ ಾಯಂೆ ಾಯಂೆ ದಲ ೇ ದಲ ೇ ದಲ ೇ ದಲ ೇ "ಾನ "ಾನ "ಾನ "ಾನ ಸ$ೆ%ಂದ ಸ$ೆ%ಂದ ಸ$ೆ%ಂದ ಸ$ೆ%ಂದ 14 ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ "ಾನ "ಾನ "ಾನ "ಾನ ಸ$ೆಯವ&ೆ'ೆ ಸ$ೆಯವ&ೆ'ೆ ಸ$ೆಯವ&ೆ'ೆ ಸ$ೆಯವ&ೆ'ೆ (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) *ೇತ+,ಂದ *ೇತ+,ಂದ *ೇತ+,ಂದ *ೇತ+,ಂದ ಚು ಾ%ತ&ಾ.ರುವ ಚು ಾ%ತ&ಾ.ರುವ ಚು ಾ%ತ&ಾ.ರುವ ಚು ಾ%ತ&ಾ.ರುವ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ ಸದಸರುಗಳ ಸದಸರುಗಳ ಸದಸರುಗಳ ಸದಸರುಗಳ ಅವ2ಯ ಅವ2ಯ ಅವ2ಯ ಅವ2ಯ ವರ ವರ ವರ ವರ: ಕ+.ಸಂ. *ೇತ+ *ೇತ+ *ೇತ+ *ೇತ+ ಾಸಕರ 4ೆಸರು "ಾನಸ$ೆ ಅವ2 - - - - - 11. (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) 5ೌ7ಾ&ೆ89 5ೌ7ಾ&ೆ89 5ೌ7ಾ&ೆ89 5ೌ7ಾ&ೆ89 ಒಂಬತ ೇ ಒಂಬತ ೇ ಒಂಬತ ೇ ಒಂಬತ ೇ "ಾನ "ಾನ "ಾನ "ಾನಸ$ೆ ಸ$ೆ ಸ$ೆ ಸ$ೆ 18.12.1989 jAzÀ 17.12.1994” The sons of accused No.1 initiated proceedings for conversion of lands in Survey Nos.12 and 13 from agricultural use to residential purpose. The said documents read as follows: “£ÀA.:JJ¯ïJ£ï.J¸ïDgï:44:92-93. ತಹ=ೕಾ>gï ರವರ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ, (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು 18 ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-5-1993. ಷಯ :- (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸ$ಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ:ನಂ: 12ರ GೈI 1-21 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜ«ÄÃನು ಮ ೆ ¤ªÉÃಶನಗE'ಾ. =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ©N DAಜ ೇಯ&ೆ89 ಎಂಬುವO'ೆ ¨sÀÆ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ರುವ ಬ'ೆP. ಉೇಖ:- ಸ4ಾಯಕ ಕ«ÄÃಷನR, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರ ಅ2ಕೃತ eÁÐ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ JJ¯ïJ£ï.¹Dgï:7:92-93, ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-11-1992. -O- -:: ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ+?ೆ ::- =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ©N ಆಂಜ ೇ ಯ &ೆ89 ಾಳಪ 'ಾ+ಮದವರು ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ:ನಂ: 12 ರ GೈI 1-21 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನನು[ \ಾಸದ ಮ ೆ V\ೇಶನಗE'ಾ. ಉೇಖದಂೆ ಸ4ಾಯಕ ಕZಷನR, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ಉಪ-$ಾಗ, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರು ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ಚದರ8 ಎಂದ?ೆS. 0-03 ¥ÉÊ¸É 2] ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ದು>, ಮಂಜೂರು _ಾರರು ಭೂ- ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ವ'ೈ&ೆ(2055-00) ಎ&ೆqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ LªÀvÉÛöÊzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ¯£ï £ÀA:37 ºÁUÀÆ vÁjÃRÄ 21-5-93 ರಂೆ `ೖಸೂರು aಾಂb, (ಂಾಮ) ಯ ಜಾ ಾ8 µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ ಬದc ಾ. V"ಾAರdಾ ಮುಚeE?ೆಯನು[ ಬ&ೆದು?ೊfgರುವTದOಂದ, ಈ ?ೆಳಕಂಡ µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ ಒಳ ಪ8] ಜZೕನು ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ+?ೆಯನು[ Vೕ8_ೆ. -:µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1) ಮಂಜೂರು_ಾರರು ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂ-ಕಂzÁಯ ಅ2Vಯಮ 95(2) ರನು[ @ಾವ ?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ ಉಲಂಘ ೆ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು. 2) Vಗ2ತ ಉzÉÝÃಶ?ೆS ಾತ+ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ರುೆ. 3) ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಮಂಡl ಪಂ5ಾ¬ÄÛ ಅಥ\ಾ ಪTರಸ$ೆ'ೆ Vಗ2ತ ಶುಲS Gಾವ ಾ8 ಪರ\ಾನ. ಪ7ೆದ ನಂತರ\ೇ ಕಟgಡ VZAಸತPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 4) @ಾವ ?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ, ¸ÀÜಳ ಬದ¯ÁªÀuÉ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು. 5) ಆಜುaಾಜು_ಾರO'ೆ @ಾವT_ೇ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄßAlÄ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು. 6) ರnೆ'ಾ. nಾಕಷುg oಾಗ pಡತಕSದು. 19 7) ಸದOೕ ಷರvÀÄÛಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂWÀ£É ಾ8ದ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ವoಾ ಾಡಾಗªÀÅzÀÄ ¸À»/- ತಹ=ೕಾ>R (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು.” …. …. …. £ÀA.:JJ¯ïJ£ï.J¸ïDgï:40:92-93. ತಹ=ೕಾ>gï ರವರ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ, (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-5-1993. ಷಯ :- (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ:ನಂ: 13 ರ GೈI 1-20 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನು ಮ ೆ V\ೇಶನಗE'ಾ. =+ೕ ಎಂ.]. aಾಾr ©N 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಎಂಬುವO'ೆ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ರುವ ಬ'ೆ. ಉೇಖ:- ಸ4ಾಯಕ ಕZಷನR, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ಉಪ-$ಾಗ (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರ ಅ2ಕೃತ sಾಪನ ಪತ+ದ ಕ+ಾಂಕ JJ¯ïJ£ï.¹Dgï:5:92-93, ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-7-92. -:: ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ+?ೆ :- =+ೕ ಎಂ.]. aಾಾr ©N 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ªÀiÁ¼À¥À°è UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀgÀÄ ಕನಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸಃನಂ: 13 ರ \ೈI 1-20 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನನು[ ಮ ೆ V\ೇಶನಗE'ಾ. ಉೇಖದಂೆ ಸ4ಾಯಕ ಕZಷನR (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ಉಪ-$ಾಗ, (ಕSಬ¼ÁîಪTರ ರವರು ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ಚದರ8 ಒಂದ?ೆS 0-03 Gೈ¸É 2] ಭೂ- ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಾ8ದು> ಮುಂಜೂರು_ಾರರು ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಶುಲS ವ'ೈ&ೆ (2022-00) ಎ&ೆಡು nಾರದ E¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ gÀÆGಾ%ಗಳu ಾತ+ ಚಲN ನಂ: 38 4ಾಗೂ , ಾಂಕ: 21-593 ರಂತ `ೖಸೂರು ¨ÁåAPï, (ಂಾಮ)ಯ ಜಾ ಾ8 µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ ಬzÀÞ ಾ. V"ಾAರuÁ ಮುಚeE?ೆಯನು[ ಬ&ೆದು?ೊfgರುವTದOಂದ, ಈ ?ೆಳಕಂಡ µÀgÀvÀÄÛಗE'ೆ ಒಳಪ8], ಜZೕನು ಪOವತA ೆ VಣAಯ ಪ+?ೆಯನು[ Vೕ8_ೆ. -:µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1) ಮಂಜೂರು_ಾರರು ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂ-ಕಂ_ಾಯ ಅ2Vಯಮ 95(2) gÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ ?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ ಉಲಂಘ ೆ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು. 20 2) Vಗ2ತ ಉ_ೆ>ೕಶ?ೆS ಾತ+ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮುಂಜೂರು ಾ8ರುೆ. 3) ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಮಂಡl ಪಂ5ಾ¬ÄÛ ಅಥ\ಾ ಪTರಸ$ೆ'ೆ Vಗ2ತ ಶುlಕ Gಾವ ಾ8 ಪರ\ಾನ. ಪ7ೆದ ನಂತರ\ೇ ಕಟgಡ VZAಸತPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 4) @ಾವ ?ಾರಣ,ಂದಲೂ, ¸ÀÜಳ ಬದ¯ÁªÀuÉ ಾಡPÀÆಡದು. 5) ಆಜುaಾಜು_ಾರO'ೆ @ಾವT_ೇ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄßAlÄ ಾಡ¨ÁgÀದು. 6) ರnೆ'ಾ. nಾಕಷುg oಾಗ pಡತಕSದು. 7) ಸದOೕ ಷರvÀÄÛಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂWÀ£É ಾ8zÀÝ ಭೂ-ಪOವತA ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ವoಾ ಾಡಾಗªÀÅzÀÄ ¸À»/- ತಹ=ೕಾ>R (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು.” 14. Thereafter came a partition deed within the family of Chowdareddy. The deed, on its face, pertains to Survey Nos.12 and 13. It distributes 37 residential sites amongst the family members— 12 sites to Chowdareddy, 13 to M.C. Balaji and 12 to M.C. Sudhakar. Had the matter rested there, perhaps little would have required further scrutiny. But the partition deed does not rest there. ‘Buried within its later recitals lies the real story’. M.C. Balaji is shown to have received 7 sites, and M.C. Sudhakar, now a sitting legislator - another 7 sites, carved out of Survey No.11. Survey No.11, it bears repetition, is not private land. It is Government Hullu Banni Kharab land.The conclusion therefore 21 is not difficult to draw. Government land appears to have been treated, as though it was ancestral property, partitioned inter se amongst family members, and dealt with as a commodity of private ownership. What could not legally be owned appears to have been privately divided; what could never be alienated appears to have been bartered within the family. 15. Later, accused No.1 and his son M.C. Balaji executed an unregistered General Power of Attorney in favour of the Government Employees House Building Co-operative Society, empowering its office bearers to sell sites formed in Survey Nos.12 and 13, while the factual matrix unmistakably reveals that layouts had also engulfed Survey No.11. Sites were formed. Sites were sold. Khatas were issued. Third-party interests were created. Government land had, for all practical purposes, vanished beneath concrete and private possession. 22 THE GENESIS OF THE PRESENT ISSUE: 16. The story remained buried until 2014, when the complainant was elected as a Councillor of Chintamani Municipal Council. Another Councillor sought information from the Tahsildar as to whether Survey No.11 had ever been allotted to any Government institution. The reply assumes significance. It reads as follows: “£ÀA.:¹.Dgï:109/14-15 ತಹ=ೕಾ>gï ರವರ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ, (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-01-2015. -:: ಂಬರಹ ಂಬರಹ ಂಬರಹ ಂಬರಹ :- ಷಯ :- (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.11 ರ aಾ§ÄÛ 1ಎ-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಆ.ದು> @ಾO'ಾದರೂ ಮಂಜೂರು ಆ._ೆ ಅಥ\ಾ ಇಲ\ೇ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ'ೆP ಂಬರಹ Vೕಡುವ ಬ'ೆP . ಉೇಖ:- 1) ಅrA_ಾರ&ಾದ ಎ|.ನಟ&ಾ} pN ೇ~ ಎಂ.]ೕನಪ• ರವರ ಅrA , ಾಂಕ : 19-1-2015 2) &ಾಜಸ€VೕOೕ•ಕರು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ರವರ ವರ, , ಾಂಕ : 21-1-2015 3) ಾಲೂಕು, ಭೂ/ಾ/ಾೆ, ((ಂ) ಇ.817/14-15 ರಂೆ ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕರು, ಾಲೂಕು, ಭೂ ಾಪನ ಾೆ, (ಂಾಮ) ರವರ ವರ,. ★★★ (ಂಾಮ) ನಗರ, \ಾ) ಾೆ ಹರ, nೊಣೆfgಹE‚ \ಾ] ಎ|.ನಟ&ಾ} pN ಎಂ.]ೕನಪ• ಎಂಬುವರು (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.11 ರ aಾ§ÄÛ 1ಎ-19 23 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಜZೕನು @ಾವT_ಾದರೂ ಸಂಘ ಸಂnೆƒಗE'ೆ/ಸ?ಾAO ಕಟgಡಗE'ೆ/\ೈಯುIಕ ವIಗE'ೆ / @ಾವT_ೇ ಇಾೆಗE'ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಅ._ೆ„ೕ ಅಥ\ಾ ಇಲ\ೇ ಎಂಬು_ಾ. Vೕ8ರುವ ಮನ `ೕ&ೆ'ೆ, ಪO=ೕಸಾ., ಉೇಖ (2) ರಂೆ ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕರು, ಾಲೂಕು ಭೂ ಾಪನ ಾೆ, (ಂಾಮ) ರವರ ವರ,, 4ಾಗೂ ಸದO ಕ…ೇO%ಂದ Vೕ8ರುವ ಆ?ಾRಬಂ†, ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬR ಮೂಲ ಪ+ ಯ‡ಾ ನಕಲು 4ಾಗೂ ಕ…ೇOಯ ಲಭ\ಾ.ರುವ ಆ R.ಆR. 5 ರ _ಾಖೆಗಳu, 1965-66 ೇ nಾVಂದ 2001-02 ರವ&ೆ'ೆ ?ೈ ಬರಹ ಪಹ)ಗಳu, 2002-03 Oಂದ 2014-15 ರವ&ೆ.ನ ಗಣIೕಕೃತ ಪಹ)ಗಳu, ಈ _ಾಖೆಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ]ರುೆ. ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಕ…ೇOಯ ಕ…ೇOಯ ಕ…ೇOಯ ಕ…ೇOಯ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಲಭರು ಲಭರು ಲಭರು ಲಭರುವಂೆ ವಂೆ ವಂೆ ವಂೆ, ಪO=ೕ]ರುವಂೆ ಪO=ೕ]ರುವಂೆ ಪO=ೕ]ರುವಂೆ ಪO=ೕ]ರುವಂೆ, ಪ+nಾˆತ ಪ+nಾˆತ ಪ+nಾˆತ ಪ+nಾˆತ ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಹುಲುಬV[ ಹುಲುಬV[ ಹುಲುಬV[ ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಖ&ಾz ಖ&ಾz ಖ&ಾz ಆ.ದು> ಆ.ದು> ಆ.ದು> ಆ.ದು> 1ಎಎಎಎ-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಗುಂyೆ ಗುಂyೆ ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಸ?ಾAರ,ಂದ ಸ?ಾAರ,ಂದ ಸ?ಾAರ,ಂದ ಸ?ಾAರ,ಂದ @ಾವT_ೇ @ಾವT_ೇ @ಾವT_ೇ @ಾವT_ೇ ಧ\ಾದ ಧ\ಾದ ಧ\ಾದ ಧ\ಾದ, @ಾವT_ೇ @ಾವT_ೇ @ಾವT_ೇ @ಾವT_ೇ ಸ?ಾAO ಸ?ಾAO ಸ?ಾAO ಸ?ಾAO ಇಾೆಗE'ೆ ಇಾೆಗE'ೆ ಇಾೆಗE'ೆ ಇಾೆಗE'ೆ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ, ಸಂಘ ಸಂಘ ಸಂಘ ಸಂಘ ಸಂnೆƒಗE'ೆ ಸಂnೆƒಗE'ೆ ಸಂnೆƒಗE'ೆ ಸಂnೆƒಗE'ೆ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ, ಅಥ\ಾ ಅಥ\ಾ ಅಥ\ಾ ಅಥ\ಾ ಾಸ. ಾಸ. ಾಸ. ಾಸ. ವIಗE'ೆ ವIಗE'ೆ ವIಗE'ೆ ವIಗE'ೆ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ ಅಗೕ ಮಂಜೂರು ಮಂಜೂರು ಮಂಜೂರು ಮಂಜೂರು ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ, ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಜZೕನು ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS nೇO_ಾ>.ರುತ_ೆ nೇO_ಾ>.ರುತ_ೆ nೇO_ಾ>.ರುತ_ೆ nೇO_ಾ>.ರುತ_ೆ, ಎಂಬು ಎಂಬು ಎಂಬು ಎಂಬು_ಾ. _ಾ. _ಾ. _ಾ. EಯುವTದು EಯುವTದು EಯುವTದು EಯುವTದು. ¸À»/- ತಹ=ೕಾ>R (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು. 'ೆ ಎ|.ನಟ&ಾ} pN ಎಂ.]ೕನಪ• \ಾ) ಾೆ ಹರ, nೊಣ‰ೆfg ಹE‚, (ಂಾಮ) ನಗರ.” The reply dated 21-01-2015 is devastating in its simplicity: Survey No.11 was Government Hullu Banni Kharab then; it remains Government Hullu Banni Kharab now; and it was never allotted to any institution. The issue soon became public discourse. Media attention followed. Public scrutiny intensified. It is in that backdrop that accused No.1 himself addressed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, stating that, if Survey 24 No.11 had been encroached by him or his family, it would be returned to the State. By then, however, the cat was not merely out of the bag—it had run far beyond retrieval. 17. Two facts became glaringly apparent. First, encroachment stood virtually admitted. Second, there remained nothing to restore. The land had already been converted into sites, alienated, and absorbed into private hands. One cannot return to the State what has already been fragmented, sold, and built upon. The communication reads as follows: “ರವO'ೆ, ಾನ rಾ2?ಾOಗಳu (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ rೆ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ. ರವOಂದ, 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಾr ಗೃಹ ಸ(ವರು ನಂ.1805 ಾಳಪ (ಂಾಮ) -563125 ಮ ೆ.08154-250094 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, ಷಯ:-ಇಂ,ನ (, ಾಂಕ:04-02-2015) ,ನ ಪತ+?ೆS ಜಯ \ಾ)ಯ ಬಂ,ರುವ ಪ+?ಾ ವರ,ಯ ಷಯ\ಾ.. 25 ****** `ೕಲSಂಡ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂೆ ಇಂ,ನ ಜಯ \ಾ) ಸಂ(?ೆಯ ಪTಟ ಸಂೆ 5 ರ ಪ+ಕಟ\ಾ.ರುವ “ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89'ೆ ಭೂ ಕಬE?ೆ ಕಂಟಕ” ಎಂಬು_ಾ. ವರ,@ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಆ ವರ,ಯರುವ 5ಾರಗಳನು[ ಗಮVಸಾ. ನನ'ೆ ಬಹಳ ಆಶeಯA\ಾ. ಈ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg _ಾಖೆಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕಲ]ರುೇ ೆ. ಆ ಷಯ\ಾ. ನನ[ 4ೆಸOನರುವ (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ರ 1ಎಕ&ೆ-21 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಮತು ಇ_ೇ ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ರ 1ಎಕ&ೆ -20 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ನನ[ Oಯ ಮಗ 7ಾ|| ಎಂ.].aಾಾr ರವರ 4ೆಸOನರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ವರ,ಯ E]ರುವ 4ಾ'ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11ರ ಪಹ)ಯನು[ ಇಂದು ಪ8,ದು>, ಗಮVಸಾ. ಇದರ 1ಎಕ&ೆ-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಹುಲು ಬV[, ಖ&ಾz ಎಂಬು_ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಸ€ನ ಸ€ನ ಸ€ನ ಸ€ನ ಮೂಲವನು[ ಮೂಲವನು[ ಮೂಲವನು[ ಮೂಲವನು[ ತಮ'ೆ ತಮ'ೆ ತಮ'ೆ ತಮ'ೆ Eಸಲು Eಸಲು Eಸಲು Eಸಲು ಬಯಸುೇ ೆ ಬಯಸುೇ ೆ ಬಯಸುೇ ೆ ಬಯಸುೇ ೆ. ಸದO ಸ€ತು ಅಂದ&ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ನನ'ೆ ನನ[ _ೊಡ9ಪ•ನವ&ಾದ =+ೕ.\ೆಂಕಟ&ೆ89 pN ಪyೇl 5ೌಡ&ೆ89, ರವOಂದ 1950-51 ರ ಾನು ಸುಾರು 13 ವಷA ವಯ]‹ನ ಹುಡಗನ._ಾ>ಗ ಇತ&ೆ ಅವರ ಸ€ತುಗŠೆŒಂ,'ೆ l ಾಮ ಮುಂಾತರ ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಅ_ೇ Oೕ@ಾ. ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ಸ4ಾ ನನ[ ಮೊಬ• _ೊಡ9ಪ•ನವ&ಾದ ಮುVಾZ&ೆ89 pN ಪyೇl 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಇವOಂದ ಇವರ ಮಗ ಾದ ಎಂ. ಾ&ಾಯಣ&ೆ89 ರವರ 4ೆಸO'ೆ ¥sÀವ \ಾರಸು‹£ÀAೆ ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ನಮŽ ತಂ_ೆ ಎಂ.].ಆಂಜ ೇಯ&ೆ89 ಮತು ಅವರ ಅಣ‰ನ\ಾರದ ಮುVಾZ&ೆ89 ಒಂ_ೇ ಜಂf ಕುಟಂಬದ \ಾಸರುಾ&ೆ. ನಂತರ 1989 ರ ಾನು ಮತು ನನ[ ಅಣ‰ ಅಂದ&ೆ ಎಂ. ಾ&ಾಯಣ&ೆ89 pN ಮುVಾZ&ೆ89 (ನಮŽ _ೊಡ9ಪ•ನವರ ಮಗ) ರವರು $ಾಗ\ಾ. ಒಟುg ಆ]ಯನು[ $ಾಗ ಾ8?ೊಂಡ ಸಂದಭAದ ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13ರ 1ಎ-20 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ನನ[ $ಾಗ?ೆS ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. 4ಾ'ೇ ಆ ನಂತರ ನನ[ Oಯ ಮಗ ಾದ 7ಾ||ಎಂ.]. aಾಾr ರವರ 4ೆಸO'ೆ ನಮŽ ಕುಟಂಬದ $ಾಗದಂೆ ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ಸ€ನ oೊೆ'ೆ ಾಳಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 45/3 ಮತು ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 16 ಮತು 17 ನಮŽ ಒಟುg ಕುಟಂಬದ ಸದಸರ 4ೆಸOನದು>, ಸುಾರು 100 ವಷAಗE.ಂತ Z.ಾ. ಅಂ_ಾಜು 16 Oಂದ 17 ಎಕ&ೆ ಪ+_ೇಶದ ನಮŽ ಕುಟಂಬ ಕೃ• ಚಟುವf?ೆಗಳನು[ ನ7ೆಸುತು, ಅಂದು ನಮŽ ಪ•Aಕರ nಾ€2ೕ ಾನುಭದದ> ಗ8ಯಂೆ ಅವರ ನಂತರ ಸ4ಾ ಈ ಸ€ತುಗಳu ನಮŽ ಸ€ಂತ nಾ€2ೕ ಾನುಭದದ>ವT. 29-05-1993 ರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ( ಆ_ೇಶ ಸಂೆ ಎ.ಎl.ಎN.ಎ|.ಆR: 44: 92-93) ಮತು ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 3 (ಆ_ೇಶ ಸಂೆ ಎ.ಎl.ಎN.ಎ|.ಆR: 44: 92-93) ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 26 ಅದರಂೆ 1-01-1994 ರ pl ಸಂೆ 371 ರ ಸ\ೆA 12 ರ ಅ‘ವೃ,c ಶುಲS ಮತು pl ಸಂೆ 372 ರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ರ ಅ‘ವೃ,c ಶುಲSವನು[ ಅಂ,ನ (ನ[ಸಂದ+ ಮಂಡl ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ Gಾವ ಾ8ರುೇ\ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ 1995 ರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 12 ಮತು ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 13 ಗE'ೆ ಪ+ೇಕ\ಾ. ಬ7ಾವdೆ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ತ@ಾO] ಅಂ,ನ ಮಂಡಲ ಪಂ5ಾಯ ಅಧ•ರ ಅನು ೕದ ೆಯನು[ ಪ8,ರುೇ\ೆ. ಈ ಮಧದ ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮವನು[ (ಂಾಮ) ನಗರ ಸ$ೆ \ಾˆ'ೆ ಒಳಪ8]ರುಾ&ೆ. ಅದರಂೆ ಈ ಸ€ತು 06-12-2003 ರ ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾರ ಸಂಘ (V) ರವO'ೆ r.ˆ.ಎ.ಮುಾಂತರ Vೕ8ರುೇ\ೆ. ನಮŽ ಕುಟಂಬವT ಸುಾಯ 100 ವಷAಗE.ಂತ ಅಂದ&ೆ nಾ€ತಂತ+ ಪ•ವA ಮತು nಾ€ತಂತ+ ನಂತರ nಾವAಜVಕ ಬದುIನದು>, ಸ?ಾAO ಸ€ತನು[ ?ಾನೂನು aಾರ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಅಥ\ಾ ಕಬE?ೆ ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವT,ಲ. ನಮŽ ಈ ಸು,ೕಘA nಾವAಜVಕ ಬದುIನ *ೇತ+ದ ಅ‘ವೃ,c ಮತು nಾವAಜVಕ ಆ]-Gಾ]ಗಳನು[ ?ಾಪಡುವ ಪ+ಾ)ಕ ಪ+ಯತ[ ಾ8ರುೇ\ೆ. ಈಗ ನಮŽ ಗಮನ?ೆS ಬಂ,ರುವ 5ಾರ\ಾ. `ೕ¯ÉÆßà ೊಟ?ೆS ನZŽಂದ VZAತ\ಾ.ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆ'ೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz nೇOದ>&ೆ ಅದು ನಮŽ ಉ_ೆ>ೕಶ ಪ•ವAಕ\ಾ. ಆ.ರುವT,ಲ. ಸದO ಆ]ಗಳu nೇOದಂೆ ನನ[ ಒಟುg ಆ]ಯ `ೕೆ ಈ ಂ_ೆ ಾನ ೋಕಯುಕರು 1996 ರ ೋಕಯುಕ ದೂOನಂೆ ವರ\ಾದ ತVೆಯನು[ ?ೈ'ೊಂಡು ಸು2ೕಘA\ಾದ ವರ,ಗಳನು[ ಮತು _ಾಖೆಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ] ಸ\ೆA ಾ8] ದೂರು_ಾರರು ?ೊfgರುವ ದೂOನ ಸಾಂಶಲ\ೆಂದು _ಾ\ೆಯನು[ ವoಾ ಾ8ರುಾ&ೆ. ನ’ಮ ಗಮನ?ೆS aಾರ_ೇ 4ಾಗೂ ಅ5ಾತುಯA,ಂದ ಅತಂಹ @ಾವT_ೇ ಒತುವO ಆ.ದ> ಅದನು[ ಕೂಡೇ ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS pಟುg ?ೊಡಲು ಾನು ಮತು ನನ[ ಮಗ ]ದcO_ೆ>ೕ\ೆ. ಈಗ ಆ.ರಬಹು_ಾ.ರುವಂತಹ ಅ5ಾತುಯAಗE'ೆ ಬಹು±À: ನೂರು ವಷAಗE.ಂತ 4ೆಚುe ಸದO ಆ]ಗಳu ನಮŽ ಸ€ಂತ nಾ€2ೕ ಾನುಭದರುವTದು ?ಾರಣ\ಾ.ರಬಹು_ೆಂದು $ಾಸುೇ ೆ. ನನ[ ಇದುವ&ೆ.ನ ಸ\ಾAಜVಕ ಬದುIನ @ಾವT_ೇ Oೕಯ ಕಳಂಕ ಬರುವ Oೕ ನ7ೆದು?ೊಂ8ರುವT,ಲ ಆದ>Oಂದ ಾನು ತಮŽ ?ೋರುವT_ೇ ೆಂದ&ೆ ಾವTಗಳu ಈ ಕೂಡೇ ಈ \ಾ2ತ ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11,12,13, ರ oೊೆ'ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 6,9,8,14,16,17, ಮತು ಾಳಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 45/3 ಇ\ೆಲದರ ಸ\ೆA ಾ8] ಅಳvÉ ಾ8 ಅದು>ಬಸು Vಗ2 ಾ8?ೊಡaೇ?ಾ. ತಮŽ ?ೇE?ೊಳu‚ೇ ೆ. ಅಳೆ@ಾದ ನಂತರ ಾ ೇ ಾದರೂ ನನ[ ಅ5ಾತುಯA,ಂದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11 ರ ಒತುವO ಾ8ದ> ಪ•ದ ಕೂಡೇ ಅದನು[ ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS ಒˆ•ಸಲು ನನ[ @ಾವT_ೇ ಅಭಂತರರುವT,ಲ. 4ಾಗೂ ಈ ಪ+I+„%ಂದ V\ೇಶನ ಕŠೆದು?ೊಳu‚ವವO'ೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸZೕಪದ ಇರುವ ಬದ ಜZೕನು ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ಬದc ಾ.ರುೇ ೆ. 27 ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒಂ,'ೆ, , ಾಂಕ:04-02-2015 vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ಸƒಳ: (ಂಾಮ) ¸À»/- (5ೌಡ&ೆ89)” He would admit that if Sy.No.11 has been encroached by him or his family, it will be immediately returned back to the State. One factor became clear is that there was encroachment. The other is, there was no land to return, as sites were formed and sold by the date of the representation. The Deputy Commissioner then directs spot inspection to be conducted and a sketch to be drawn in the light of land grabbing allegation being projected in all print media. The document of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10-02-20125 reads as follows: “ನಗರಸ$ಾ ನಗರಸ$ಾ ನಗರಸ$ಾ ನಗರಸ$ಾ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ, (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) ಸಂೆ : ನಸ(/¹§âA¢/].ಆR/ /2014-15/713 , ಾಂಕ: 10-02-2015 ರವO'ೆ, ಾನ ತಹ]ೕಾ>R ರವರು, (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, (ಂಾಮ). ಾನ&ೆ, 28 ಷಯ :- ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1.19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಸ\ೆA ಾ8 ಗ8 ಗುರುತು ಾಡುವ ಬ'ೆP. ಉೇಖ :-1. ಅrA_ಾರರ ಮನ , ಾಂಕ: 02-02-2015 2. ತಮŽ ಕ…ೇO ಂಬರಹದ ಪತ+ದ ಸಂೆ : ಎl.ಎN.8.].ಆR/109/2014-15 , ಾಂಕ: 21-01-2015 ***** `ೕಲSಂಡ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂೆ =+ೕ ನಟ&ಾ}.ಎ| ನಗರಸ$ಾ ಸದಸರು, (ಂಾಮ) ರವರು ಉೇಖ ಪತ+ದನ€ಯ ದೂರು ಸ] ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1.19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕVನ (ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz) ಅಕ+ಮ ಬ7ಾವdೆ VZA] ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಅಕ+ಮ ಾೆಗಳನು[ ೆ&ೆ,ರುವ ಬ'ೆP ಸೂಕ ಕ+ಮ ?ೈ'ೊಳ‚ಲು ?ೋOರುಾ&ೆ. ಆದ>Oಂದ ಾನ rಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ೌ”ಕ ಆ_ೇಶದಂೆ ಸದO ಜZೕನನು[ ಸ\ೆAಾ8] ಗ8 ಗುರುತು ಾ8 ಒತುವO ಬ'ೆP ವರ, Vೕಡಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮŽ ?ೋರಾ._ೆ. ಸದO ದೂರು 4ಾಗೂ _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಪ+ಗಳನು[ ಪತ+_ೊಂ,'ೆ ಲಗಸಾ.ದು> ಸಂಬಂ2]ದ ಎಲOಗೂ ೋfೕ| oಾO ಾ8 ಸ\ೆA ಾ8 ನ*ೆಯ ಗುರುತು ಾ8 Vೕಡಲು ?ೋO_ೆ. ಇದನು[ ತುತುA ಎಂದು ಪOಗ)ಸಲು ?ೋO_ೆ. ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒಂ,'ೆ, ತಮŽ ಾ€] ¸À»/- Gೌ&ಾಯುಕರು ನಗರಸ$ೆ, (ಂಾಮ).” The Deputy Commissioner, sensing the gravity of the allegations, ordered an immediate survey. The reports that followed from the Municipal Authorities, the Tahsildar, and the Deputy Director of Land Records are unambiguous. Survey No.11, a Government B Kharab land, had been encroached upon, converted into a residential layout, subdivided into sites, sold through 29 registered instruments, and developed with constructions. The report reads as follows: “ನಗರಸ$ಾ ನಗರಸ$ಾ ನಗರಸ$ಾ ನಗರಸ$ಾ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ ?ಾ@ಾAಲಯ,(ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) (ಂಾಮ) ಸಂೆ: ನಸ(/]ಬ•ಂ,/].ಆR/ /2014-15 /713 , ಾಂಕ:09-03-2015 ರವO'ೆ, ಾನ rಾ2?ಾOಗಳu, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ rೆ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ. ಾನ&ೆ, ಷಯ : ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕVನ ಅಕ+ಮ ಬ7ಾವdೆ VZA] ಅಕ+ಮ ಾೆಗಳನು[ ಾ8 ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವ ಬ'ೆP ವರ,. ಉೇಖ : 1. =+ೕ ನಟ&ಾ} pN ೇ~ ]ೕನಪ• ನಗರಸ$ಾ ಸದಸರು ರವರ ದೂOನ , ಾಂಕ: 02-02-2015 2. ತಮŽ ಪತ+ದ , ಾಂಕ:.----- 3. , ಾಂಕ: 06-12-2003 ರ ಾ8ರುವ ಜನರl ಪವR ಆ• ಅyಾAV @ಾ nಾಾನ ಅ2?ಾರ ಪತ+. ****** ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ,]ದಂೆ ಉೇಖ (1) ರ ದೂರು ಮತು (2)ರ ಸೂಚ ೆಯಂೆ _ಾಖೆಗಳನು[ ಮತು ಸƒಳವನು[ ಪO=ೕಸಾ._ೆ. (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 12 ಮತು ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 13 ರ ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕVನ ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳೆಯ V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಂಗ8] ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಆ] ೆO'ೆ OrಸgRನ ಾೆ _ಾಖ]ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಭೂZಯ ಮೂಲ ಾೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 pN ಎಂ.].ಆಂಜ ೇಯ &ೆ89 ಮತು =+ೕ ಎಂ.].aಾಾr pN 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಇವರು (ನ[ಸಂದ+ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೌ| |g ಪTಸಕ ಆಧO] ಒಟುg ಭೂZಯ \ಾˆ'ೆ ಾೆಯನು[ ಪ7ೆದಂೆ ನಗರಸ$ೆ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖಾ._ೆ. ದೂರು_ಾರರು 30 E]ರುವಂೆ ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZ'ೆ 1,31,769 ಚದರ8ಗಳಷುg ಭೂZ ಲಭ\ಾಗುತ_ೆ. ಆದ&ೆ (ಂಾಮ) ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ _ಾಖಾ.ರುವ ಒಟುg 111 ಾೆಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ]_ಾಗ V\ೇಶನಗಳu ಮತು ರnೆ'ೆ ?ಾ%>O]ರುವ oಾಗ nೇO ಒಟುg 1,62,349 ಚದರ8ಯಷುg ಬ7ಾವdೆ \ಾˆ'ೆ nೇO]?ೊಂ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಾ8_ಾಗ ಸದO ಕನ[ಂಪ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 12 ಮತು 13 ?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂಡಂೆ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಇರುವTದು ಮತು ಅದನು[ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. nೇO]?ೊಂಡು V\ೇಶನ ಂಗ8] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಒತುವO oಾಗದ ಸಹ ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಾೆಗŠಾ.ದು> 5 ಮ ೆಗಳu VಾAಣ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂ 11 ರ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಜZೕನು ಆ.ರುವT_ಾ. ತಹ]ೕಾ>R (ಂಾಮ) ರವರು , ಾಂಕ : 02-02-2015 ರಂದು ಂಬರಹ Vೕ8ರುಾ&ೆ ಮತು ಸದO ಭೂZಯನು[ ಸ\ೆA ಾ8 ಗ8 ಗುರುತು ಾ8?ೊಡುವ ಬ'ೆP , ಾಂಕ: 10-02-2015 ರಂದು ಾನ ತಹ]ೕಾ>R ರವO'ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ಭೂಾಪನ ಇಾೆ ರವO'ೆ ಪತ+ ಬ&ೆಯಾ._ೆ. ಈ ಬ'ೆP 2 ,ನ ಸ\ೆA ?ೆಲಸ ಾ8ದು> ಇದವ&ೆಗೂ @ಾವT_ೇ ವರ,ಯ ಪ+ Vೕ8ರುವT,ಲ ಆದ&ೆ ಸ\ೆA ಾಡುವ ಸಂದಭAದ 4ಾಜOದ> ನನ'ೆ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.11 ರ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕನು ಒತವO ಾ8 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ರ(]ರುವTದು 4ಾಗೂ ?ೆಲವT ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ VಾAಣ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.12 ಮತು 13 ರ ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ 29-05-1993 ರ ಭೂ ಪOವತA ೆ ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಅದನು[ ಆಧO] ಒಟುg ಭೂZಯನು[ (3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ) ನಮೂ,] (ನ[ಸಂದ+ 'ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ ಾೆ _ಾಖಸಾ._ೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಪಂ5ಾ%%ಂದ ನಗರಸ$ೆ'ೆ ಹnಾಂತOಸಾ._ೆ ಎನ[ಾದ 4ೌ| |g OrಸgRVಂದ Eಯುತ_ೆ. (ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಬಳಸುರುವ ಪಂ5ಾ%%ಂದ ಹnಾಂತರ ಾಡಾ._ೆ ಎನ[ಾದ ಪTಸಕ?ೆS @ಾವT_ೇ =ೕ•A?ೆ@ಾಗ, ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೆಸ&ಾಗ, ಅಥ\ಾ ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಹರು ಮತು ಸ ಸಹ ಇರುವT,ಲ ಇಂ_ೊಂದು ಕ5ಾe ಪTಸಕ\ಾ.ದು> ಈ ಪTಸಕ ಆಧO] ನೂ&ಾರು ಾೆಗಳನು[ ನಗರಸ$ೆ _ಾಖೆ'ೆ ೆ'ೆದು?ೊಳ‚ಾ._ೆ) ಆದ&ೆ ಸದO ಎಕ&ೆ ೆಕSದ ಒಟುg ಾೆಯನು[ ನಗರಸ$ೆ _ಾಖೆಗE'ೆ _ಾಖಸು\ಾಗ ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳೆಯ V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾೆಗಳನು[ _ಾಖಸಾ._ೆ. ಈ ಸಂದಭAದ ಕ ಾAಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು 'ಾ+ಾಂತರ –ೕಜ ಾ ?ಾ„>ಯ8ಯ ಪಂ5ಾ%@ಾಗ ಅಥ\ಾ ನಗರಸ$ೆ@ಾಗ ಅನು ೕದ ೆಯನು[ ಪ7ೆ,ರುವT,ಲ ಮತು ನಗರಸ$ೆಯು ಒಟುg 111 V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾೆಗಳ ಒಟುg ಅಳೆಯನು[ ಗಮV]_ಾಗ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ \ಾˆಯ ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz nೇOದಂೆ ಒಟುg 4 ಎಕ&ೆ 20 ಗುಂyೆಯ ಜZೕVನ \ಾˆ'ೆ ಾೆಗಳನು[ _ಾಖ]ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ Vಯಮಗಳ ರುದc\ಾ. 1999 4ಾಗೂ 2000 ೇ nಾನ ಅnೆ|`ಂ~ OrಸgRನ ಎಕ&ೆ ೆಕSದ _ಾಖ]ರುಾ&ೆ ಮತು 17-05-2000 ಈ , ಾಂಕದ ನಗರಸ$ೆ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂೆ 2212037 ರ ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ.. 3932/-, , ಾಂಕ: 17-05-2001 ರ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂೆ : 0005578 ರ ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ. 1200/- ಮತು 17-05-2002 ರ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂೆ: 2212037 ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ. 31 1050/- ಮತು 17-05-2002 ರ ರ]ೕ, ಸಂೆ: 2212038 ರ ಪ+?ಾರ ರೂ. 3230/- ಗಳu ನಗರಸ$ೆ'ೆ ಅ‘ವೃ,c ಶುಲS\ಾ. Gಾವ] ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಾೆಗಳನು[ _ಾಖ]?ೊಂ8ರುಾ&ೆ. ಸದO ವರಗಳu =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 4ಾಗೂ =+ೕ aಾಾr ರವರು ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕಕರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾರ ಸಂಘ VಯZತ (ಂಾಮ) ಇವO'ೆ Vೕ8ರುವ r.ˆ.ಎ ಪತ+ದ ಲಭ\ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ನಂತರ 2002-03 ೇ nಾVಂದ ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಸ?ಾAರ oಾO ಾ8ದ ಅnೆ|`ಂ~ ಪTಸಕ ಪದ> - ಆ] ೆO'ೆ OrಸgRನ ಸದO 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳೆಯ ಾೆಗಳ ಾ[. _ಾಖಸಾ._ೆ. ಸದO ಪTಸಕದ @ಾವT_ೇ ಅ2?ಾOಯ ಹರು ಮತು ಸ ಇರುವT,ಲ. ಆದ&ೆ ಸದO ಾೆಗಳ GೈI ಅ ೇಕ ಾೆಗಳu ವ'ಾAವdೆ@ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ಅಕ+ಮ ಹಗರಣದ ಆರಂಭ ಇ_ೇ ಸಂದಭAದ ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. `ೕಲSಂಡ 111 ಾೆಗಳನು[ ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ _ಾಖ] ಅ_ೇ ಆ"ಾರದ ಒಟುg 106 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ (ಂಾಮ) ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾO ಸಂಘ?ೆS ಮೂಲ ಾೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 4ಾಗೂ =+ೕ aಾಾr ರವರು r.ˆ.ಎ ಮೂಲಕ ಾ&ಾಟ ಹಕುS ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ನಂತರ ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಂಘವT ತನ[_ೆ ಒಂದು ೇ ಔ~ ನ*ೆ ತ@ಾರು ಾ8 ಸದಸO'ೆ ಈ V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ಹಂ(?ೆ ಾ8 ಕ+@ಾ ಾ8?ೊfgರುತ_ೆ. ಅದರ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಾ&ಾz 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯು ಸ4ಾ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. nೇO] ಬ7ಾವdೆ VಾAಣ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಸ\ೆA ?ಾಯA ನ7ೆಸು\ಾಗ `ೕೊ[ೕಟ?ೆS ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. `ೕನ ವರಗಳನು[ ಪO=ೕ]_ಾಗ ಭೂZಯ ಾೕಕರು ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲು ಬV[ ಖ&ಾz ಜZೕ ಾದ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಭೂZಯನು[ ಒತುವO ಾ8 ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. (ಂಾಮ) ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಾೆಗಳನು[ _ಾಖ]?ೊಂ8ರುವTದು 4ಾಗೂ ಸ?ಾAO ಭೂZಯನು[ nೇO] V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಾ8 ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಂಘದ ಮೂಲಕ ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು, ಆ ಮೂಲಕ ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS 4ಾಗೂ ನಗರಸ$ೆ'ೆ ಮತು V\ೇಶನ ಖOೕ,]ರುವವO'ೆ ವಂಚ ೆ ಆ.ರುವTದು `ೕೊ[ೕಟ?ೆS ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಭೂZಯ 111 V\ೇಶನಗಳ ರಚ ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಾೆ@ಾ.ದು> 106 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಂಘದ ಮೂಲಕ ಾ&ಾಟ ಆ.ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,_ೆ. ಈ ಎಾ V\ೇಶನಗಳu ನಗರ ಮತು 'ಾ+ಾಂತರ –ೕಜ ಾ ಇಾೆಯ Vಯಮಗಳನು[ 4ಾಗೂ ಮುV]ಪl ?ಾ„>ಯ Vಯಮಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂ˜]ರರುವTದು ಮತು ಸ?ಾAರದ ಭೂZಯನು[ ಒತವO ಾ8 V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ಂಗ8] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಸದO ಅಕ+ಮ ಾೆಗಳu ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ _ಾಖ]ರುವ , ಾಂಕದ =+ೕ ಾ&ಾಯಣಪ• ರವರು Gೌ&ಾಯುಕ&ಾ. nೇ\ೆ ಸ]ರುಾ&ೆ ಮತು =+ೕ oೈ&ಾಮಯ 8]p ಗುಾಸರು(Vವೃತರು) 4ಾಗೂ =+ೕ ಸZೕವTಾ ಕಂ_ಾಯ VOೕ•ಕರು(ಮೃತ&ಾ.ರುಾ&ೆ), ರವರು ಕಂ_ಾಯ $ಾಗದ ?ಾಯAVವA]ರುಾ&ೆ. `ೕಲSಂಡ ವರ,ಯನು[ ತಮ'ೆ ಸಸುಾ ಈ ಅಕ+ಮ?ೆS ?ಾರಣ&ಾ.ರುವವರ `ೕೆ ಅಗತ ಕ+ಮ ಜರು.ಸಲು 4ಾಗೂ ಅಕ+ಮ ಾೆಗಳನು[ ರದು>ಪ8ಸಲು ತಮŽ ಆ_ೇಶ ?ೋO ಸ]_ೆ 32 ಈ ಪತ+ದ oೊೆ'ೆ ದೂರು_ಾರರ ದೂOನ ಪ+, ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.11, 12, 13 ರ ಪಹ) ಪ+ಗಳu ತಹ]ೕಾ>R ರವರು Vೕ8ರುವ ಂಬರಹ, `ೕೆ E]ರುವ ಪಂ5ಾ% ಪTಸಕದ ಾೆ _ಾಖ]ರುವ ಪ+, ನಗರಸ$ೆ ಪTಸಕಗಳ ಾೆ _ಾಖ]ರುವ ಪ+ಗಳu ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಹ?ಾರ ಸಂಘ pಡುಗ7ೆ ಾ8ರುವ ೇಔ~ ನ*ೆಯ ಪ+ 4ಾಗೂ ಮೂಲ ಾೕಕರು ಸ?ಾAO ೌಕರರ ಗೃಹ VಾAಣ ಸಂಘ?ೆS V\ೇಶನಗಳನು[ ಾ&ಾಟ ಾಡಲು Vೕ8ರುವ nಾಾನ ಅ2?ಾರ ಪತ+ದ oೆ&ಾb‹ ಪ+ಗಳನು[ ಲಗ]_ೆ. ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒಂ,'ೆ, ತಮŽ ಾ€] ¸À»/- Gೌ&ಾಯುಕರು, ನಗರಸ$ೆ,(ಂಾಮ)” (sic) The Deputy Director of Land Records then along with the Tahsildar conducted a detailed survey of Sy.No.11, 12 and 13 and opined that Sy.No.11, Government ‘B’ kharab land is illegally encroached, layout is formed and houses are constructed after sale of sites in the said property. The finding is as follows: “ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಸ?ಾAರ rಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ಾಂ+ಕ ಸ4ಾಯಕರು 4ಾಗು ಪದVZತ ಭೂ_ಾಖೆಗಳ ಉಪV_ೇAಶಕರು, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ rೆ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ. £ÀA.f.vÁA.¸À.¨sÀÆ.G.¤.59/15-16 , ಾಂಕ:22-04-2015 ರವO'ೆ, ಾನ rಾ2?ಾOಗಳu (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ rೆ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ. 33 ಾನ&ೆ, ಷಯ:- (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಸƒಳತVಾ ವರ, ಸಸುವ ಬ'ೆP. ಉೇಖ:-1.=+ೕ ಆR.&ೋಷN aೇ•, ಮೂಲ nೌಲಭ ಅ‘ವೃ,c, \ಾಾA ಮತು nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA 4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು ರವರ ಕ…ೇO fಪ•) ¸ÀA.ªÀÄÄ.ªÁºÀ.¸À.676/2014, ¢:11/02/2015. ~~**~~ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂೆ ಉೇ”ತ ಾನ ಉಸು\ಾO ಸ(ವರ ಕ…ೇO fಪ•) ಆ_ೇಶದಂೆ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಾ8 ವರ\ಾದ ವರ,ಯನು[ ಸಸಲು ಸೂ(]ರುವಂೆ , ಾಂಕ:25/02/2015 ರಂದು ಉಪ$ಾ'ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu 4ಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಾಲೂಕು ತಹ]ೕಾ>R ರವರ ಮತು ಕಂ_ಾಯ ಇಾೆಯ ]ಬ•ಂ,–ಂ,'ೆ ಪ+nಾˆತ ಪ+ಕರಣದ aಾ§ÄÛ ಸƒಳತVೆಯನು[ VವAಸಾ%ತು. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಆ?ಾರಬಂ,ನಂೆ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಇದು>, 'p' ಖ&ಾpನ _ಾಖಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಹಕುS_ಾಖೆಗಳಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಉಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಗ8ಗಳನು[ ಮೂಲ ಸ\ೆA _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಆ"ಾರದ `ೕೆ ಅಳೆ ಾ8 ಪO=ೕಸುವ ?ಾಲದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•) ಆ.ದು>, ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•) aಾ§ÄÛ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ಾ8 fಪ•)ಯನು[ ತ@ಾOಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಾಲೂಕು ಭೂಾಪನ ಾೆ, ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕO'ೆ ಸೂ(]ದಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಅಡಯಂೆ ಮತು ಮೂಲ _ಾಖೆಗಳಂೆ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕ] ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯನು[ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ'ಾ. ಪ+nಾವ ೆ ಸ]ದು>, ಅದರಂೆ , ಾಂಕ:08/04/2015 ರಂದು Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯನು[ ಅನು ೕ,]ರುತ_ೆ. ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ಬದಾವdೆ@ಾ. ಅದರಂೆ ಆ?ಾರಬಂದು ಅನು ೕದ ೆ@ಾ. ಮೂಲ _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಇಂ8ೕಕರಣ\ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ.ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.11 ರರರರ ಶಂಕು ಶಂಕು ಶಂಕು ಶಂಕು ೕr) ೕr) ೕr) ೕr) fಪ•) fಪ•) fಪ•) fಪ•) aಾ aಾ aಾ aಾ§ÄÛ ಸƒಳ ಸƒಳ ಸƒಳ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ \ೇŠೆ \ೇŠೆ \ೇŠೆ \ೇŠೆ ಅಳೆ ಅಳೆ ಅಳೆ ಅಳೆ ಾ8 ಾ8 ಾ8 ಾ8 ಗ8ಗಳನು[ ಗ8ಗಳನು[ ಗ8ಗಳನು[ ಗ8ಗಳನು[ Vಗ2ಪ8] Vಗ2ಪ8] Vಗ2ಪ8] Vಗ2ಪ8] ಸƒಳದ ಸƒಳದ ಸƒಳದ ಸƒಳದ ಗುA]ರುತ_ೆ ಗುA]ರುತ_ೆ ಗುA]ರುತ_ೆ ಗುA]ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ.ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.11 ರ ರ ರ ರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ಶಂಕು ೕr) ಶಂಕು ೕr) ಶಂಕು ೕr) ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಮೂ_ಾ.ರುವ ನಮೂ_ಾ.ರುವ ನಮೂ_ಾ.ರುವ ನಮೂ_ಾ.ರುವ 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ಗುಂyೆ ಗುಂyೆ ಗುಂyೆ ]ೕಣAವನು[ ]ೕಣAವನು[ ]ೕಣAವನು[ ]ೕಣAವನು[ ಸƒಳದ ಸƒಳದ ಸƒಳದ ಸƒಳದ ಗುA]ರುವಂೆ ಗುA]ರುವಂೆ ಗುA]ರುವಂೆ ಗುA]ರುವಂೆ ಪ•&ಾ ಪ•&ಾ ಪ•&ಾ ಪ•&ಾ ನಂಬR ನಂಬR ನಂಬR ನಂಬRನ ನ ನ ನ ಸ•ಮ ಸ•ಮ ಸ•ಮ ಸ•ಮ Gಾ+ Gಾ+ Gಾ+ Gಾ+2?ಾರದ 2?ಾರದ 2?ಾರದ 2?ಾರದ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಾ8 ಾ8 ಾ8 ಾ8 nೈಟುಗಳನು[ nೈಟುಗಳನು[ nೈಟುಗಳನು[ nೈಟುಗಳನು[ VZA]ರುವTದು VZA]ರುವTದು VZA]ರುವTದು VZA]ರುವTದು ಸƒಳತVೆ ಸƒಳತVೆ ಸƒಳತVೆ ಸƒಳತVೆ \ೇŠೆ \ೇŠೆ \ೇŠೆ \ೇŠೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಅಲ_ೆ ಅಲ_ೆ ಅಲ_ೆ ಅಲ_ೆ ನ*ೆಯ ನ*ೆಯ ನ*ೆಯ ನ*ೆಯ ೋO]ರುವಂೆ ೋO]ರುವಂೆ ೋO]ರುವಂೆ ೋO]ರುವಂೆ 5 ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.11 ರ ರ ರ ರ VZA]ರುವTದು VZA]ರುವTದು VZA]ರುವTದು VZA]ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಲಭರುವ ಲಭರುವ ಲಭರುವ ಲಭರುವ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಪ+?ಾರ ಪ+?ಾರ ಪ+?ಾರ ಪ+?ಾರ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ.ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.11 ರ ರ ರ ರ ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ. ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ. ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ. ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ. ಾ8ರುವ ಾ8ರುವ ಾ8ರುವ ಾ8ರುವ ೇಔ~ ೇಔ~ ೇಔ~ ೇಔ~ Gಾ Gಾ Gಾ GಾN N N N _ಾಖೆ _ಾಖೆ _ಾಖೆ _ಾಖೆ ಆ"ಾರದ ಆ"ಾರದ ಆ"ಾರದ ಆ"ಾರದ `ೕೆ `ೕೆ `ೕೆ `ೕೆ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ.ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.11 ರ ರ ರ ರ ಾ8ರುವ ಾ8ರುವ ಾ8ರುವ ಾ8ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಜZೕVನ ಜZೕVನ ಜZೕVನ ಜZೕVನ 34 ]ƒಯಂೆ ]ƒಯಂೆ ]ƒಯಂೆ ]ƒಯಂೆ ಮತು ಮತು ಮತು ಮತು GಾN GಾN GಾN GಾNನನನನ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ತ@ಾO] ತ@ಾO] ತ@ಾO] ತ@ಾO] ನಮೂ,]_ೆ ನಮೂ,]_ೆ ನಮೂ,]_ೆ ನಮೂ,]_ೆ. Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ.ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.11 ರರರರ ಾಗು ಾಗು ಾಗು ಾಗು ದžಣದ ದžಣದ ದžಣದ ದžಣದ ಕ7ೆ ಕ7ೆ ಕ7ೆ ಕ7ೆ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ Oೕ.ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.12, 13 ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ.ದು> ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ.ದು> ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ.ದು> ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ.ದು>, ಸದO ಸದO ಸದO ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ಸ\ೆA ಸ\ೆA ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬR ನಂಬR ನಂಬR ನಂಬRಗಳu ಗಳu ಗಳu ಗಳu ಡುವE ಡುವE ಡುವE ಡುವE ನಂಬR ನಂಬR ನಂಬR ನಂಬR ಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ ಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ ಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ ಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ. `ೕಲSಂಡ `ೕಲSಂಡ `ೕಲSಂಡ `ೕಲSಂಡ ಾಯನು[ ಾಯನು[ ಾಯನು[ ಾಯನು[ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಪತ+_ೊಂ,'ೆ ಪತ+_ೊಂ,'ೆ ಪತ+_ೊಂ,'ೆ ಪತ+_ೊಂ,'ೆ ಲಗfgರುವ ಲಗfgರುವ ಲಗfgರುವ ಲಗfgರುವ ನ*ೆಯ ನ*ೆಯ ನ*ೆಯ ನ*ೆಯ ಗುA] ಗುA] ಗುA] ಗುA] ತಮŽ ತಮŽ ತಮŽ ತಮŽ ಅವ'ಾಹ ೆ'ೆ ಅವ'ಾಹ ೆ'ೆ ಅವ'ಾಹ ೆ'ೆ ಅವ'ಾಹ ೆ'ೆ ಸ]_ೆ ಸ]_ೆ ಸ]_ೆ ಸ]_ೆ.” (Emphasis added at each instance) Sketch is appended to the report. It is then the Deputy Commissioner informs the District in-charge Minister with regard to the encroachment of Sy.No.11 and directs the Assistant Commissioner to remove the encroachment from the said area. The communications read as follows: 35 “£ÀA.f.vÁA.¸À.¨sÀÆ.G.¤.59/15-16 , ಾಂಕ: 29-04-2015 ರವO'ೆ, ಸ ಾŽನ ಆR.&ೋಷN aೇ•, ಮೂಲ nೌಲಭ ಅ‘ವೃ,c, \ಾಾA ಮತು nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA 4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು, ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಸ?ಾAರ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ಸ ಾŽನ&ೆ, ಷಯ:- (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಸƒಳತVಾ ವರ, ಸಸುವ ಬ'ೆP. ಉೇಖ:- ತಮŽ ಕ…ೇOಯ fಪ•) ಸಂ:ಮು.\ಾ.ಹ.ಸ.676/2014, ,:11/02/2015. ~~**~~ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂೆ ಉೇ”ತ ತಮŽ ಕ…ೇOಯ fಪ•) ಆ_ೇಶದಂೆ (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ 1–19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು oಾಗವನು[ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವ ಕುOತು ಕ+ಮ?ೈ'ೊಳ‚ಲು ಸೂ(]ರುವಂೆ ಈ ಬ'ೆP ಸƒಳತVೆ ನ7ೆ] ವರ\ಾದ ವರ,ಯನು[ ಸಸಲು ಭೂ_ಾಖೆಗಳ ಉಪV_ೇAಶಕರು ಮತು ಉಪ$ಾ'ಾ2?ಾOಗE'ೆ ಸೂ(ಸಾ.ತು. ಅದರಂೆ , ಾಂಕ:25/02/2015 ರಂದು ಸƒಳತVೆ ನ7ೆ] ವರ,ಯನು[ ಸ]ರುಾ&ೆ. ಸದOಯರು ಸಸುವ ವರ,ಯಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಆ?ಾರಬಂ,ನಂೆ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಇದು>, 'p' ಖ&ಾpನ _ಾಖಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಹಕುS_ಾಖೆಗಳಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಗ8ಗಳನು[ ಮೂಲ ಸ\ೆA _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಆ"ಾರದ `ೕೆ ಅಳೆ ಾ8 ಪO=ೕಸುವ ?ಾಲದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•) ಆ.ದು>, ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•) ¨Á§ÄÛ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ಾ8 fಪ•)ಯನು[ ತ@ಾOಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಾಲೂಕು ಭೂಾಪನ ಾೆ, ಪ@ಾA\ೇ•ಕO'ೆ ಸೂ(]ದಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಅಡಯಂೆ ಮತು ಮೂಲ _ಾಖೆಗಳಂೆ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕ] ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯನು[ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ'ಾ. ಪ+nಾವ ೆ ಸ]ದು>, ಅದರಂೆ , ಾಂಕ:08/04/2015 ರಂದು Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•)ಯನು[ ಅನು ೕ,]ರುತ_ೆ. ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR fಪ•dೆಯಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ 36 ಬದಾವdೆ@ಾ. ಅದರಂೆ ಆ?ಾರಬಂದು ಅನು ೕದ ೆ@ಾ. ಮೂಲ _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಇಂ8ೕಕರಣ\ಾ.ರುತ_ೆಂದು ತಮŽ ವರ,ಯ E]ರುಾ&ೆ. ಭೂ_ಾಖೆಗಳ ಉಪV_ೇAಶಕರ ಮತು ಉಪ$ಾ'ಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ವರ,ಯಂೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) fಪ•) ¨Á§ÄÛ ಸƒಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ \ೇŠೆ ಅಳೆ ಾ8 ಗ8ಗಳನು[ Vಗ2ಪ8] ಸƒಳದ ಗುA]ದು>, Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) ನಂತರ ನಮೂ_ಾ.ರುವ 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ]ೕಣAವನು[ ಸƒಳದ ಗುA]ರುವಂೆ ಪ•&ಾ ನಂಬRನ ಸ•ಮ Gಾ+2?ಾರದ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಾ8 nೈಟುಗಳನು[ VZA]ರುವTದು ಸƒಳತVೆ \ೇŠೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಅಲ_ೆ ನ*ೆಯ ೋO]ರುವಂೆ 5 ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ VZA]ರುವTದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುತ_ೆ. ಲಭರುವ _ಾಖೆಗಳ ಪ+?ಾರ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ. ಾ8ರುವ ೇಔ~ GಾN _ಾಖೆ ಆ"ಾರದ `ೕೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಾ8ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಜZೕVನ ]ƒಯಂೆ ಮತು GಾNನ ನ*ೆಯನು[ ತ@ಾO] ನಮೂ,]_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಾಗು ದžಣದ ಕ7ೆ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.12, 13 ಸಹ ಬ7ಾವdೆಗŠಾ.ದು>, ಸದO ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬRಗಳu ಡುವE ನಂಬRಗŠಾ.ರುತ\ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 'p' ಖ&ಾaಾ.ದು>, ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಇದು ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕ ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಈ ಜZೕVನ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ Vಯಮaಾರ\ಾ. ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ ೆರವT'ೊEಸುವ ಬ'ೆP ಕ+ಮ?ೈ'ೊಳ‚ಾಗುವTದು ಇದ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟg ಾಯನು[ ಒಳ'ೊಂಡ ನ*ೆ ಮತು ವರ,ಯನು[ ತಮŽ ಅವ'ಾಹ ೆ'ೆ ಸ]_ೆ. ವಂದ ೆಗŠೆŒಂ,'ೆ, ತಮŽ ಾ€] ಸ/- rಾ2?ಾOಗಳu (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ rೆ.” ….. ….. …… “£ÀA.f.vÁA.¸À.¨sÀÆ.G.¤.59/15-16 , ಾಂಕ: 29-04-2015 ರವO'ೆ, ಉಪ$ಾ'ಾ2?ಾOಗಳu, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ ಉಪ$ಾಗ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ. ಾನ&ೆ, 37 ಷಯ:- (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾpನ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ ೆರವT'ೊEಸುವ ಬ'ೆP. ಉೇಖ:- =+ೕ ಆR.&ೋಷN aೇ•, ಮೂಲ nೌಲಭ ಅ‘ವೃ,c, \ಾಾA ಮತು nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA 4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು ರವರ ಕ…ೇO fಪ•) ¸ÀA.ªÀÄÄ.ªÁºÀ.¸À.676/2014, ,:11/02/2015. ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ2]ದಂೆ (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE, ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು oಾಗವನು[ (ಶಂಕು ೕr) fಪ•) ನಂತರ ]ೕಣA 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ) ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ರುವವರನು[ ?ಾನೂನು ಪ+?ಾರ ತVೆ ಾ8 4ೊರದೂಡಲು ಉ¯ÉèÔvÀ ಾನ ಸ(ವರು, ಸೂ(]ದ>ರ `ೕ&ೆ'ೆ ಸƒಳತVೆ ನ7ೆ] ವರ\ಾದ ವರ, ಮತು ನ*ೆಯನು[ ತ@ಾO] ಸಸಲು E]ರುವTದು ಸ€ಯಂ\ೇದ\ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಪ+ಕರಣದ ಸƒಳತVೆ ನ7ೆ], Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಸ•ಮ Gಾ+2?ಾರದ ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ಇಲ_ೆ ಬ7ಾವdೆ ಾ8 nೈಟುಗಳನು[ VZA] ಇದರ 5 ಮ ೆಗಳನು[ ಮತು 1 ರ ಮ ೆಕಟgಲು ಅ8Gಾಯ 4ಾIರುವT_ಾ. ವರ,ಯ ಅನು ೕ,]ರುತ_ೆ. Oೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.11 ಸ\ೆA _ಾಖೆಗಳಂತ 1-19 ಗುಂyೆ ಇದು>, ¸ÉÌÃl ನಂಬR ನಂತರ ಶಂಕು ೕr) fಪ•) ಾಡು\ಾಗ 1-25 ಗುಂyೆ ]ೕಣA?ೆS ಬದಾವdೆ@ಾ. ಅದರಂೆ ಆ?ಾರಬಂದು ದುರ]@ಾ. ಹಕುS_ಾಖೆಗಳ ಈ ನಂಬR ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾಬು ಆ.ರುವTದOಂದ ಇದು ಸ?ಾAರ?ೆS nೇOದ ಸ€ಾ.ದು>, ಇದರ ಸಂರ•dೆ ಾಡುವ ಸಲು\ಾ. ಈ ಸ\ೆA ನಂಬRನ ವರ, ಮತು ನ*ೆಯ E]ರುವಂೆ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. VZA]ರುವ ಬ7ಾವdೆಯನು[ ಮತು ಇದರ ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. VZA]ರುವ ಕಟgಡಗಳನು[ ೆರವT'ೊEಸುವ ಬ'ೆP VೕವT ಸದO ಜZೕನನು[ ಸ?ಾAರದ ವಶ?ೆS ಪ7ೆದು ಕೂಡೇ ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನನು[ ಸಂರžಸಲು ಇದರ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. ೆೆವ•Oರುವವರನು[ ೆರವT'ೊE] ಈ ಆ]ಯನು[ ಸ?ಾAರದ ವಶ?ೆS ಪ7ೆಯಲು V@ಾಾನುnಾರ ?ಾನೂನು ಕ+ಮಗಳನು[ ?ೈ'ೊಂಡು ವರ, ಸಸಲು ಸೂ(]_ೆ. ತಮŽ ಾ€] ಸ/- rಾ2?ಾOಗಳu (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ rೆ.” 38 A notice then comes to be issued by the Tahsildar to accused No.1 and his sons directing removal of encroachment and illegal construction. The notice reads as follows: “¸ÀASÉå:/NCR/CR/01/2015-168 , ಾಂಕ: 25-07-2015 ೋfೕ| ೋfೕ| ೋfೕ| ೋfೕ| ಷಯ:-(ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.11 ರ ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನನು[ ದುರುಪ–ೕಗ ಪ8]?ೊಂಡು ಅಕ+ಮ ಾೆಗಳನು[ ಾ8ರುವ 5ಾರ. ಉೇಖ:-1.=+ೕ ಆR &ೋಷN aೇ•, ಮೂಲnೌಲಭ ಅ‘ವೃ,c, \ಾಾA ಮತು nಾವAಜVಕ ಸಂಪಕA 4ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ ಸ(ವರು ಇವರ PÀZÉÃj n¥Ààt ¸ÀA:ªÀÄÄ.ªÁ.¸.676/2014 ¢:11.2.2015. 2.Gೌ&ಾಯುಕರು, ನಗರ ಸ$ೆ (ಂಾಮ) ಇವರ ಪvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:£À¸Àa/¹§âA¢/¹Dgï/2014-15 ¢:9.3.2015 3. rಾ2?ಾOಗಳu. (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರrೆ, (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ ಇವರ ಪತ+ ¸ÀASÉå:f£ÀPÉÆÃ/a¹(1)-125/2015-16 ¢:19-05-2015 4. rಾ2?ಾOಗಳ ಾಂ+ಕ ಸ4ಾಯಕರು 4ಾಗೂ ಪದVZತ ಭೂ_ಾಖೆಗಳ ಉಪ V_ೇAಶಕರು - (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ rೆ (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಪTರ ಇವರ ಪತ+ಸಂೆ:r.ಾಂ.ಸಭೂಉV.59/2015-16 ¢:22.04.2015 ***** `ೕಲSಂಡ ಷಯ?ೆS ಸಂಬಂ,]ದಂೆ 4ಾಗೂ ಉೇಖ (3) ಪತ+ದ (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸaಾ 4ೋಬE ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.12 ಮತು ಸ.ನಂ.13 ಒಟುg 3 ಎಕ&ೆ 1 ಗುಂyೆ ಜZೕVನ ಒಟುg 111 ಧ ಅಳೆಯ V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಂಗ8] ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಆ] ೆO'ೆ OrಸgRನ ಾೆ _ಾಖ]ರುವT_ಾ. ಸದOಭೂZಯ ಮೂಲ ಾೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ5ೌಡ&ೆ89 pN ಆಂಜ ೇಯ&ೆ89 ಮತು =+ೕ ಎಂ.] aಾಾr pN 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಇವರು (ನ[ಸಂದ+ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೌ| |g ಪTಸಕ ಆಧO] ಒಟುg ಭೂZಯ \ಾˆ'ೆ ಾೆಯನು[ ಪ7ೆದಂೆ ನಗರ ಸ$ೆ _ಾಖೆಗಳ _ಾಖಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ಉೇಖ(2) ಮತು (4) ರ£Àéಯ |ಥಳ ಪO=ೕಲ ೆ ಾ8_ಾಗ ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.12 ಮತು ಸ.ನಂ.13?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂಡಂೆ ಸ.ನಂ.11ರ 1 ಎಕ&ೆ 19 ಗುಂyೆ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[ ಖ&ಾz 39 ಇರುವTದು ಮತು ಅದನು[ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. nೇO]?ೊಂಡು V\ೇಶನ ಂಗ8] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವTದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ,_ೆ. ಸದO ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕVನ ಈ ?ೆಳಕಂಡವರು ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂ8ದು> ಸದO ರವರ ಒತುವOಯನು[ ೆರವT'ೊEಸಲು ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ_ಾಯ ಅ2Vಯಮ 1964 ರ ಪ+ಕರಣ 94 ಮತು 104 Oೕಾ F ೋfೕ| Vೕಡಾಗುದು> VೕವT ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನು ಅನ2ಕೃತ\ಾ. ಒತುವO ಾ8?ೊಂಡು V\ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ[. ಂಗ8] ಬ7ಾವdೆ VZA] ಾ&ಾಟ ಾ8ರುವ VಮŽ ರು†ಧ ಕ ಾAಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ_ಾಯ ?ಾ„> ಕಲಂ 192(ಎ) ರಂೆ ಏಳu ,ನ_ೊಳ'ಾ. V\ೇಶನ/ ಕಟgಡಗಳನು[ ೆರವT'ೊEಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂ(]_ೆ. ತˆ•ದ Vಯಾನುnಾರ ಕ+ಮ?ೈ'ೊಳ‚ಾಗುವTದು. ಸ/- ತಹ=ೕಾ>R (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು.” 18. This order comes to be challenged before the coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.32702 -32703 of 2015. This comes to be disposed by the following order: “Having heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and perused the notices of even date 25.07.2015 of the Tahsildar, impugned, directing removal of construction on the ‘Hullubanni Kharab’ belonging to the State Government, indisputably, when not preceded by a notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners tantamounting to violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. Sri H.Venkatesh Dodderi, learned Government Advocate, fairly submits that in the absence of prior notice and an opportunity of hearing, notice impugned could be read down as a show cause notice entitling petitioners to submit their explanations and an opportunity of hearing before the Tahsildar. 2. Recording the submission of learned counsel, the notices impugned are read down as show cause notices entitling petitioners to file their explanations and an opportunity of hearing where afterwards the third 40 Respondent to pass orders in accordance with law. Petitions are ordered accordingly.” Opportunity of hearing was directed to be granted to the petitioners therein. Thereafter a notice comes to be issued on 14-10-2015 to which a reply is submitted by accused No.1 and his son M.C. Balaji. The reply reads as follows: “FROM: 1. Sri. Chowdareddy S/o late M.C. Anjaneya Reddy Malapalli extension, Chintamani. 2. Sri.M.C.Balaji s/o Sri. Chowdareddy Malapalli extension, Chintamani Date:06/11/2015 To The Tahsildar Chintamani taluk Chintamani. Sir, This is with reference to Your office notice bearing No. ncr/CR/68/2015-16 dated 14/10/2015. As informed earlier the above said notice was received by me on evening of 21/10/2015 and therefore, I had sent a request letter dated 27/10/2015 seeking extension of time to reply your said notice. My reply to your above said notice is as under: 41 a. You have referred to your office notice dated 25/07/2014 in your latest notice. As you are aware, My son M.C Balaji and myself had filed a writ petition challenging the said notice in W.P. No.32702 and 32703 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 5/8/2015 directed you to seek our explanations and opportunity of hearing before passing any order. [Copy of this order is enclosed herewith.] as directed the Hon'ble High Court we had sent a detail reply on 17/08/2015 showing cause against the notice dated 25/07/2015. The same was received by your office on 17/08/2015. However, it is surprising your present notice do not make a mention of our reply at all. b. In the said reply we had requested to give an opportunity in proof of what is stated in the said reply. Please let us know if any orders are passed on our reply dated 17/8/2015 as no opportunity is given to us after reply is sent to you. c. This reply may kindly read as part and parcel of our earlier reply dated 17/08/2015. As contended in the earlier reply, the disputed land bearing sy No. 11 of Kannampalli village measuring 1 acre 19 guntas and out of which 35 guntas had been in continuous peaceful and possession and enjoyment of my father Sri. M.C. Anjaneya Reddy. Sri M.C.Anjaneya reddy is my father and grand father of Balaji. Sri. M.C. Anjaneya Reddy occupied the said land to an extent of 35 guntas [which is referred to herein after as the said land] had following boundaries. EAST: Formerly S.No 45 [now lay out govt housing co-operative society. WEST: S.No 10 of Narayana Rao and now private layout NORTH: Channel in sy no. 11 and remaining area of S. no 11 and S.No 9 SOUTH; S.No 12 and 13 42 d. Sri. M.C.Anjaneya reddy occupied the land in question on the Shankaranthi day of 1950 with a view to acquire title over the said land by adverse possession. On that day, he openly asserted his hostile intention to dispossess the Government of the said land and occupied the said land to the knowledge of the government as well as the entire world openly. As could be appreciated, eastern boundary of the disputed land is S. No. 45 and Sy No. 12 formed southern boundary to said disputed Sy No. 11. Both lands in Sy. No. 45 and 12 of Malappally belonged to our joint family. Therefore, these two lands were abutting to the said land in Sy No. 11. The contours and the topography of Sy No. 11 was such that it was ideally suited for becoming part of Sy No. 45 and 12. The Sy No. 45 and 12 were slopping northwards towards. Sy No. 11. Therefore M.C.Anjaneya reddy occupied the land in Sy No. 11 to an extent of 35 guntas and cultivated the land and became part and parcel of the other two lands. There were no ridges bifurcating the said survey numbers. The existing ridges were removed at the time of said occupation. Ever since Shankranthi day of 1950 our family had been growing dry crops in the said land. Our cousin brother Sri. Narayana Reddy s/o Munishamy Reddy purchased Sy No. 13 which also formed southern boundary to the disputed land. Thus, Sri. M.C. Anjaneya Reddy openly, peacefully and continuous without any interruption or disturbance from any person including the government authorities asserted hostile animus and title against the government to their knowledge and notice. The said land is very close to Chinthamani town. Thus, he became absolute owner of the disputed Sy No. 11 by way of adverse possession. In fact, various partition deeds executed amongst the family members described the boundary of Sy No. 13 as channel in Sy No. 11. Thus, Anjaneya Reddy had become owner of Sy No. 45, 11, 12, and 13. After the death of Anjaneya reddy his grand sons namely, M.C. Balaji, M.C. Sudhakar and I partitioned all our joint family properties under registered partition 43 deed. Under schedule 'B' the land bearing Sy No. 13 including Sy No. 11 is allotted to the share of Sri. M.C.Balaji. Thus said land has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of our family till date. e. The entire case stands on the survey allege to have been done between 13/2/2015 and 19/2/2016. The alleged survey is done with out notice to us and behind our pack. The report of the said survey do not bind us. The survey is ---- and illegal and therefore no actions can be taken based on the said report your notice solely founded on the said materials. Which are collected in an illegal manner. All those action are against natural justice. f. It may be pertinent to note that my son Balaji and I executed a General Power of Attorney dated 6/12/2013 in favour of Sri. B. Anjaneya Reddy and V. Nagaraj President and Secretary of Sarakari Nowkarara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha authorizing them to sell the sites to its members. Accordingly, the society has sold 99 sites to various purchasers who have taken delivery of possession and are in lawful possession of the same. Many of them have constructed their residential houses. g. There is absolutely no any crimal intention on our part to have executed a power of attorney. Since, we had become owners by adverse possession, we had legal right to convey the same. Therefore, the intended criminal action under Section 192[a] of Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be invoked as under the colour of the ownership the property is sold. Unless the government makes out that we have not acquired ownership or title to the property in question by way of adverse possession, then only the government initiate action. Therefore, the matter is essentially a civil dispute and therefore, it does not invite any acion under Section 192[a] of the Act. h. The impugned notice is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of Law. The impugned notice do not indicate the basis on which the proposed action is contemplated. The impugned notices have been issued at the instance of persons who are politically motivated and 44 inimical towards us. We are targeted as we belong to rival political party. The intended action is actuated by malice and malafides. i. Inspite of this reply, if you require, we are prepared to present the necessary evidence in proof of our claim in proper forum. Therefore we request you to drop the intending action in order to meet the ends of justice, and circumstances. Thanking you Yours faithfully, Sd/- [Chowda Reddy]” (sic) When reply came from accused No.1 and his son, the defence adopted is of considerable significance. The denial of possession disappeared. Instead came a plea of adverse possession.That plea, by its very architecture, carries an implicit admission. A person claiming adverse possession does not say, “I do not possess.” He says, “I possess, and though the land belongs to another, my possession has matured into title.” Thus, the defence itself tacitly acknowledges possession over Government land. 45 19. Thereafter came the complaint before the Anti- Corruption Bureau, alleging systematic land grabbing by accused No.1 and his family. Preliminary enquiry culminated in registration of Crime No.4 of 2017. The sketch appended to the complaint again reveals the startling picture—37 sites formed over land that prima facie belonged to the State, all from the hands of accused No.1/Chowdareddy and his sons M.C. Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar. The complaint reads as follows: “From: Mr. R. Venkataramana, S/o late Laxminarayanappa, Aged about 53 years, R/o Sonnasetty Halli, 2nd Main, Chintamani. To. The Station House Officer, Anti Corruption Bureau, Race Course Road, Bangalore-560001. Sir, Sub: Complaint of Criminal Conspiracy between Mr. Chowda Reddy, Mr. M.C.Balaji, Mr. M.C.Sudhakar, (all are residents of R/o Malapalli Layout, Chintamani), the then Commissioner of City Municipal Council, Chintamani, Sub-Registrar and other public servants. 46 With reference to the above subject, I am herewith submit the facts hereunder as follows: 1. I am basically a social worker. Over a period of time, the area of my service has increased manifold and the people whose grievances were duly addressed and redressed at all level have went to an extent of electing me as a member of local Municipality. In the capacity of member of the Municipality, I came across lot of malpractices in the administration system. It was noticed that, the malpractices are either at the intervention of higher bureaucrats or the elected representatives to the various levels. Since the beneficiaries of welfare scheme of the government are actually not getting the benefits as a result of rampant corruption, I have decided to expose all those bureaucrats and the politicians who are instrumental in denying the benefits to the beneficiaries. During my quest for eradication of the corruption in whatever mode and in whatever stage in the society, I came across the involvement of people who have been voted to power by the people of this state. The people involved have not only abused their office in practicing the corrupt act but also coated the rules and regulations, exchanged the monitory benefits in a clandestine manner, benefited themselves and in the process derailed faith reposed by the people. It is the persons who are expected to be a role model for the people, mouthpiece of the people and the guardians of the people conveniently floated and breached the rules in getting themselves unlawfully enriched. Even the government officers have extended their hands in helping the elected people to abuse their office and in other words, the government servants have also abused their office by not following the rules and regulation only with an intention to please the people who are powerful in the political circle. 2. The commission and omission of aforesaid bureaucrats and the politicians are punishable under the various statutes including the Prevention of Corruption Act. The people involved are very influential politicians. Hence, certain departments are not furnishing the details of the entire transaction. However, I have produced most of the material documents which prima facie implicates the aforesaid persons. In-depth investigation will expose all other incriminating circumstances against those persons which I may not able to do so in his individual capacity. 47 3. It is submitted that, one Mr. Chowda Reddy has been elected as a Member of Legislation Assembly from Chintamani constituency on many occasions. He was last holding the office of the MLA for the period between 1999 to 2004. His son by name M.C.Sudhakar was also elected as a MLA from Chintamani constituency on 2 occasions from 2004 to 2013. On account of their long stint as a Member of Legislative Assembly, they have developed their own clout in the bureaucratic level. Out of their political and economic power, they have not only flouted the rules and regulations but also made the public servants to act in tandem with them and in the process, the aforesaid public servants and other public servants have caused huge loss to the government and corresponding gain for themselves. 4. Mr. M.C.Balaji and Mr. M.C.Sudhakar are the sons of Mr. Chowda Reddy. They have played active roles in the illegal act committed by their father and other public servants. They are the part of the conspiracy hatched by Mr. Chowda Reddy and other public servants. 5. Property bearing Sy No.11 in all measuring 1 acres 19 guntas of land of Kannampalli Village, Chintamani Taluk is a Government Kharab land. The said land has been shown as government. Hullubanni Kharab in the revenue records. Copy of the RTC and mutation extract evidencing the aforesaid fact are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A and A1 respectively. 6. The adjacent lands bearing Sy No. 12 measuring 1 acres 21 guntas and Sy No.13 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas are standing in the name of Mr. Chowda Reddy and M.C.Balaji respectively and both these lands were converted in to non agricultural purpose. The RTCs of these 2 lands evidencing their ownership over the same are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B & B1 respectively. 7. The aforesaid father and his 2 sons without obtaining the necessary permission and sanction from the competent authority have illegally formed a residential layout and in the process made use of even the adjacent government land measuring 1 acre 19 guntas for formation of the layout. 48 8. By making use of their personal properties as well as aforesaid government land, the aforesaid father and his 2 sons have formed in all 106 sites of different dimension as per their own plan and formed another 5 sites which do not find place in their own plan. Copy of the plan prepared by them are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-C. 9. Having done the aforesaid act and deeds, Mr. Chowda Reddy and his 2 sons have managed to get the katha from the Municipal Corporation even in the absence of approved plan from the planning authority. The public servants who were working during the relevant point of time in the office of Municipal Corporation have issued the katha without exercising their statutory duties in order to favour Mr. Chowda Reddy and his 2 sons with an intention to make corresponding gain for themselves. Copy of the katha issued to Mr. Chowda Reddy and Mr. M.C.Balaji are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-D and D1. 10. In furtherance of the same, Mr. Chowda Reddy and his sons have entered in to a registered partition deed dated 23/12/2000 and in the partition deed, sites Nos. 10, 13, 16, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 73, 103, 106 and other sites were allotted to Mr. Chowda Reddy. Site Nos. 11, 14, 17, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 71, 104, and other sites were allotted to the share of Mr. M.C.Balaji. Similarly sites Nos.9, 12, 15, 18, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57 along with other sites were allotted to Mr. M.C.Sudhakar. The recitals have been written as if the partition has been effected in respect of Sy Nos. 12 and 13 of Kannampalli Village. Copy of the partition deed is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-E. 11. In furtherance of the same, Mr. Chowda Reddy and Mr. Balaji have sold the aforesaid sites to the members of Government Employees Association through their PA holder, i, e one Mr. V.Nagaraj, Secretary, Karnataka Government Employees House Building Co-Operative Society. Copy of the GPA is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-F. The recitals in the GPA as well as the sale deeds strangely states that, all those sites are exclusively belonging to only to Mr. Chowda Reddy and Mr. Balaji. It is interesting to note in the said GPA that, the sites are shown to have formed only in Sy No.12 49 and 13. Some of the sale deeds are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-G, G1 to G7 respectively. 12. I being a member of local Municipal Corporation, having come across the aforesaid illegal act, vide my complaint dated 02/02/2015 brought to the notice of the Municipal Corporation regarding the illegal act committed by Mr. Chowda Reddy and others. Even the Deputy Commissioner who has come across the aforesaid illegal act appears to have directed the Thasildar to conduct the spot inspection and prepare the sketch of the entire land in which the layout has been formed. Based on the said direction, the process of survey was conducted and sketch was prepared indicating the formation of about 35 sites in Sy No.11 which belongs to the government. Copy of the sketch evidencing the said aspect is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-H. 13. It is relevant to mention here itself that, the District in- charge Minister having come across the illegality, vide his office letter dated 11/02/2015 directed the Thasildar of Chintamani Taluk, Assistant Commisisoner of Chikkabhallapura Sub-Division and Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and in- charge Deputy Director of Land Records to carry out the spot inspection and make a enquiry in to the illegality. The said 3 officials took up the spot inspection and thereafter sent their report to the Deputy Commissioner on 22/04/2015 with their observation that, land bearing Sy No.11 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas is a 'B' Kharab land and sites have been formed on the said land without the plan sanction and 5 number of residence have come up in the said land. Copy of the said report is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-J. 14. In the meanwhile, based on my complaint, the officials of the Municipal Corporation has made a spot inspection and only after being convinced with the allegations made by me, addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner on 09/03/2015 confirming the encroachment of the government land, formation of the layout, obtaining the katha in respect of those sites and disposing of the sites to the third parties and requested the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action in the matter. Copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-K. 50 15. On the basis of the said report, the Deputy Commissioner vide his communication dated 29/04/2015 directed the Assistant Commissioner to take steps to remove the encroachment. Copy of the said communication is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-L. 16. It is submitted that, in furtherance of the above narrated sequence of developments, the jurisdictional Thasildar appears to have taken out a notice 25/07/2015 against Mr. Chowda Reddy and Balaji requiring them to forthwith remove the constructions put up in the government land. The said persons being aggrieved by the said notice, approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.32702-703/2015. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 05/08/2015 disposed the matter with a direction to the Thasildar to offer an opportunity to Mr. Chowda Reddy and Balaji to have their say in the matter before taking the final decision. Copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-M. 17. In furtherance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the jurisdictional Thasildar vide notice dated 14/10/2015 called upon them to offer their explanation. In response to the said notice, Mr. Chowda Reddy has submitted his reply but interestingly not denied the factum of forming the layout in the government land. The only defense taken by him is that, he has perfected his title over the government land. The tone and tenure of the reply is the conclusive proof of formation of the layout over the government land, formation of the layout without approved plan, obtaining the katha of the site formed in the government land and disposing of the sites formed on the government land without authority. Copy of the show cause notice as well as reply given by Mr. Chowda Reddy are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-N & N1 respectively. 18. In the meantime, the illegal acts committed by the aforesaid father and sons with active connivance with the public servants and other private persons, appeared in print media. Mr. Chowda Reddy in response to the said report of the print media, addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner 04/02/2015 stating that, he has not intentionally formed a layout in the government land and by stating so, he has categorically admitted the factum of encroachment and formation of the layout on the land belonging to the government 51 and subjected the sites formed on the said land for sale to the various persons. Copy of the letter of the 1st accused is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-P. 19. In order to control corruption and nepotism in public life by the public servants, a comprehensive enactment was brought by the parliament to check the political and economic power gained by illegal means. Of late, the bribery and corruption by public servants has enormously increased on account of men in power indulging in corrupt practice for amassing wealth for them and for their kin and kith. To curb such corrupt practices, the prevention of corruption act was enacted by the parliament to enable the authorities to take socially useful measures conceived in public interest and it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object i.e., to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them. The Act also encompasses the cased of direct benefit obtained by a public servant for himself or for himself or for any other person from a third party in the manner described therein. The act was brought to purify the public administration. A new offence of misconduct has been created relating to public servants and has an effect on such public servants. In view of the addition made in definition of "Public Servants" any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty will come within the ambit of the definition of public servant. Section 2 (viii) (b) (c) defines public servant under the latest Act. 20. Hence, Mr. Chowda Reddy, Balaji, Sudhakar and officials of Town Municipal Council, Sub-Registrar and other public servants have committed the overt act of mis-conduct so as to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 34 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code by adopting illegal methods and connived with each others for pecuniary advantage by abusing their official position while holding the office of the public servants without there being any public interest. Hence, I request your good office to kindly register a case against concerned Government Servants and also Private person/s and other persons who are directly or indirectly involved in commission of the various offences under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Indian Penal Code, investigate the 52 exact role played by each of them and to punish them in accordance with law and render justice. Thanking You, Sd/- Yours obedientiy. (R.Venkataramana)” The complaint is in great detail. The complaint then results in a preliminary enquiry being conducted by the ACB. The finding in the preliminary enquiry is as follows: “…. …. …. 4. 5ಾರdಾ2?ಾOಯ 5ಾರdಾ2?ಾOಯ 5ಾರdಾ2?ಾOಯ 5ಾರdಾ2?ಾOಯ ಅ‘Gಾ+ಯ ಅ‘Gಾ+ಯ ಅ‘Gಾ+ಯ ಅ‘Gಾ+ಯ: (ಕSಬŠಾ‚ಮರ rೆ (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮದ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 12 ರ 1.21 ಎಕ&ೆ ಡುವE ಜZೕನು =+ೕ.5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ರವರ 4ೆಸO'ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 13 ರ 1.20 ಎಕ&ೆ ಡುವ ಜZೕನು =+ೕ.aಾಾr&ೆ89 ರವರ 4ೆಸO'ೆ ಇದು>, ಅದ?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂಡಂೆ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ 1.25 ಎಕ&ೆ ಹುಲುಬV[ (ಬ) ಖ&ಾಬು ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನು ಇರುತ_ೆ. , ಾಂಕ: 29-05-1993 ರ =+ೕ.5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಮತು =+ೕ.aಾಾr ರವರ ಮನಯಂೆ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 12 ಮತು 13 ಜZೕV'ೆ (ಂಾಮ) ತಹ=ೕಾ>R ರವOಂದ ಭೂ ಪOವತA ೆ@ಾ.ರುತ_ೆ. ನಂತರ (ನ[ಸಂದ+ 'ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೌ|ೕ|g ಪTಸಕದ ಎಕ&ೆ ೆಕSದ ಾೆ@ಾ.ದು>. ನಂತರ (ಂಾಮ) ಪTರಸ$ೆಯು ನಗರಸ$ೆ@ಾ. `ೕಲ>oೆA 4ೊಂ,ದ `ೕೆ ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮವT (ಂಾಮ) ನಗರಸ$ೆ'ೆ ಒಳಪಡುತ_ೆ. ಕನ[ಂಪ 'ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ5ಾ%ಯ 4ೌ|ೕ|g ಪTಸಕವನು[ ಸO@ಾ. ಪO=ೕಸ_ೆ, ನಗರಸ$ೆಯ ಆ.ನ Gೌ&ಾಯುಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ. ಾ&ಾಯಣಪ•, 8.].p. ಗುಾಸ&ಾದ =+ೕ.ಜಯ&ಾಮಯ, ಕಂ_ಾಯ VOೕ•ಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ.ಶZೕವTಾ ರವರು ಜZೕVನ ಾೕಕ&ಾದ =+ೕ.5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ರವರು ಆಗ (ಂಾಮ) ಾಲೂಕು ಾಸಕ&ಾ.ದು> ಮತು ಅವರ ಮಗ =+ೕ.aಾಾr&ೆ89 ರವರ ಅ2?ಾರ ದುರುಪ–ೕಗ,ಂದ, ಅವO'ೆ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಆಗುವಂೆ ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. ಸ\ೆA ನಂ.12 ಮತು 13 ರ ಸ€ಂತ ಜZೕV'ೆ ಭೂ ಪOವತA ೆ@ಾ.ದು>, ಅದ?ೆS 4ೊಂ,?ೊಂ8ರುವ ಸ\ೆA ನಂ. 11 ರ ಸ?ಾAO ಹುಲುಬV[ (ಬ) ಖ&ಾಬು 1.25 ಎಕ&ೆ ಜZೕನು nೇO] ಅಕ+ಮ\ಾ. ?ಾನೂನು ಉಲಂ˜] 5ೌಡ&ೆ89 ಮತು aಾಾr&ೆ89 ರವರುಗE'ೆ ಅಕ+ಮ ಾಭ?ಾS. ಉ_ೆ>ೕಶ,ಂದ Vಯಮaಾರ\ಾ. ಾೆಗಳನು[ ಾ8], ಸ?ಾAO ಜZೕನನು[ ಒತುವO ಾಡಲು ಅನುಕೂಲ ಾ8?ೊಟುg ಅGಾ+ಾ)ಕೆ%ಂದ ತಮŽ ?ಾನೂನುಬದc ಅ2?ಾರವನು[ ದುರುಪ–ೕಗಪ8]?ೊಂಡು 53 ಕತAವೋಪ\ೆಸ.ರುವTದು ಭ¡ಾg5ಾರ ಪ+ಬಂಧಕ ?ಾ„>-1988 ಕಲಂ 13(1),(]),(8) ಮತು ಕಲಂ 447 ಐˆ] ಅ8ಯ =*ಾಹA ಅಪ&ಾಧ\ೆಸ.ರುವTದು Gಾ+ಥZಕ 5ಾರdೆ%ಂದ ಕಂಡುಬಂ,ರುೆ. `ೕನಂೆ ನ7ೆಸಾ.ರುವ Gಾ+ಥZಕ 5ಾರdಾ ವರ, ತಮŽ ಅವ'ಾಹ ೆ'ೆ 4ಾಗೂ ಮುಂ,ನ ಕ+ಮ?ಾS. ಸ]_ೆ.” Pursuant to the preliminary enquiry, the crime in Crime No.4 of 2017 comes to be registered. To the complaint a sketch of the area is also appended. The sketch is as follows: 54 On the top end of the sketch is Sy.No.11, again the other two are Sy.Nos. 12 and 13. 37 sites are seen to have been formed in the Government land by making it as land belonging to Chowdareddy/ accused No.1, M.C.Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar. The details of the accused are shown in the crime. It is shown as accused No.1/Chowdareddy, accused No.2/Narayanappa, accused No.3/Jayaramaiah and the other Shamiulla who by then died. 20. Though the material prima facie discloses that M.C. Balaji and M.C. Sudhakar were direct beneficiaries, both stand conspicuously absent from the array of accused. How beneficiaries of allegedly grabbed Government land remain outside the dragnet of crime is a matter that raises serious concern. Yet, since the matter is still at the stage of investigation, this Court consciously refrains from making further observations. At this stage, the Court is not expected to weigh evidence with the precision of trial. The Court only examines whether the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. They 55 unmistakably do. Therefore, investigation in the least becomes imperative. 21. Insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is concerned, while all the above was happening, he was the officer of the Town Municipal Council. Officer in the sense, the Commissioner in the Town Municipal Council. It is an admitted fact that during that period he was the Commissioner. As observed, the matter is in the stage of investigation. He may be dropped from the array of accused or other accused may be added in the array of accused while filing the final report. Therefore, it is too premature for this Court to stall the investigation in the teeth of the aforesaid offence. 22. Several other contentions are sought to be urged by the learned senior counsel. One factor remains is that the Government land i.e., ‘B’ kharab can never become the subject matter of conversion. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules reads as follows: 56 “21. Classification:- (1) For the purposes of assessment, all lands shall be classed with respect to their productive qualities. The number of classes and their relative value reckoned in annas (16 annas, i.e., 100 per cent classification value) shall be fixed under the orders of the Commissioner for Survey, Settlement and Land Records with reference to the circumstances of the different tracts of the State to which the Survey extends and to the nature of the cultivation, and the classification results shall be recorded in the following books and forms (a) Prathi Book; (b) Bagayat Taktha; (c) Darwari; (d) Classers Register; (e) Statement showing bifurcation of soil and water assessment; (f) Akarband. (2) During the process of classification land included as unarable shall be treated as "Pot Kharab". Pot Kharab lands may be classified as follows (a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey including the farm buildings or threshing floors of the holder; (b) That which is not assessed because; (i) it is reserved or assigned for public purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or recognised footpath or by a tank or stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic purposes; (iii) used as burial ground or cremation ground; (iv) assigned for village potteries.” 57 The legal position concerning B Kharab land admits of no ambiguity. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules unmistakably declares such land to be Government land reserved for specified public purposes. It is incapable of private appropriation. It is incapable of conversion into residential layouts. It cannot be transformed into a private commodity merely because power, influence, or administrative silence aided such transformation. 23. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER1 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether merely on acquisition of land under any Prevalent Acquisition Act right of the public in the ‘‘B Kharab’ land subject matter of acquisition would stand automatically extinguished? 2. Can a beneficiary of an acquisition claim that once a land acquired has been handed over to the beneficiary the ‘B Kharab’ flowing along 1 Writ Petition No.13483 of 2022 decided 12-12-2023 58 with the said land would also vest with the beneficiary, with the right of the general public being automatically extinguished? 3. Can the reliefs sought for in the writ petition be granted? 4. What order? 9. I answer the above points as under; 10. Answer to point No.1: Whether merely on acquisition of land under any Prevalent Acquisition Act right of the public in the ‘‘B Kharab’ land subject matter of acquisition would stand automatically extinguished? And Answer to point No.2: Can a beneficiary of an acquisition claim that once a land acquired has been handed over to the beneficiary the ‘B Kharab’ flowing along with the said land would also vest with the beneficiary, with the right of the general public being automatically extinguished? 8.1 Both the questions being related to each other are taken up together for consideration. 8.2 Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 67. Public roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property of others belong to the Government.— 59 (1) All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks and all canals and water-courses and all standing and flowing waters, and all lands wherever situated which are not the property of individuals or of aggregate of persons legally capable of holding property, and except in so far as any rights of such persons may be established, in or over the same, and except as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, are and are hereby declared to be with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the State Government. Explanation.—In this section, “high-water mark” means the highest point reached by ordinary spring tides at any season of the year. (2) Where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the State Government or by any person as against the State Government, it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner or a Survey Officer not lower in rank than a Deputy Commissioner, after formal inquiry to pass an order deciding the claim. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub- section (2) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit contesting the order within a period of one year from the date of such order and the final decision in the civil suit shall be binding on the parties 8.3 A perusal of the said provision would indicate that all public roads, streets, lanes, paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences would stand vested with and belong to the Government. A ‘kaludari’ which is a footpath or a Bandi Jadu which is a cart-track are roads of the past which were used by the persons residing in and around the area for access to the different areas. 60 8.4 Thus, the concept of public roads, streets lanes and parks, in my considered opinion would also include a ‘kaludari’ and/or a Bandi Jadu which is in the nature of a road. This ‘kaludari’ and/or Bandi Jadu is demarcated in the village map and in concerned Revenue documents and is classified as ‘B Kharab’ lands as regards with the landowner is not required make payment of any land revenue. 8.5 This being so for the reason that the said land is not exclusively enjoyed by the landowner but is reserved for usage by the general public in terms of Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. These lands, though belonging to the Government, the right of the general public is also vested in the said land and cannot be divested without following the procedure prescribed under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 68 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 68. Extinction of rights of public and individuals in or over any public road, street, lane or path not required for use of public.— (1) Whenever it appears to the State Government that the whole or any part of any public road, street, lane, or path which is the property of the State Government, is not required for the use of the public, the State Government may, by notification, make a declaration to such effect, stating in such declaration that it is proposed that the rights of the public as well as of all persons in or over any such road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be extinguished. On the publication of such notification, the Deputy Commissioner, shall, as soon as possible cause public notice of such declaration to be given at convenient places on, or in the vicinity of, such road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, as the case may be. Such declaration and notice shall specify, as far as practicable, the situation and limits of such road, street, lane or path or part 61 thereof, and shall invite objections to the aforesaid proposal. (2) Any member of the public or any person having any interest or right, in addition to the right of public high-way, in or over such road, street, lane or path or part thereof, or having any other interest or right which is likely to be adversely affected by the proposal may, within one month after the issue of the notification, under sub-section (1), state to the Deputy Commissioner in writing his objections to the proposal, the nature of his interest or right and the manner in which it is likely to be adversely affected and the amount and particulars of his claim to compensation for such interest or right: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may allow any person to make such statement after the period of one month after the issue of the notification under subsection (1), if he is satisfied that such person had sufficient cause for not making it within the said period. (3) The Deputy Commissioner shall give every person who has made a statement to him under sub-section (2), an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such persons in such manner and after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, determine the amount of compensation, if any, which should, in his opinion, be given in any case in respect of any substantial loss or damage likely to be caused by the proposed extinction of the rights of the public as well as of persons as aforesaid. The provisions of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings held by the Deputy Commissioner under this sub-section. (4) The Deputy Commissioner shall submit to the State Government the record of the proceedings held by him with the report, containing his recommendations on the objections, if any, 62 received by him stating the amount of compensation, if any, which, in his opinion, are payable to any person. (5) If the State Government is satisfied after considering the record of the proceedings and the report, if any, made under sub-section (4) that the public road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, specified in the notification under sub- section (1) is not required for the use of the public, a declaration shall be published in the official Gazette that all rights of the public as well as of all persons in or over such road, street, lane, or path, or part thereof, are extinguished; and all such rights shall thereupon be extinguished, and such road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, shall be at the disposal of the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration. (6) The decision of the Deputy Commissioner, subject to such appeals or revision as are allowed under Chapter V, regarding the amount of compensation and the person to whom such compensation, if any, is payable, shall be final; and payment shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner to such persons accordingly. 8.6 For the purposes of extinction of the rights of the public and individuals in a ‘kaludari’ or a Bandi Jadu the procedure under Section 68 would have to be followed with the declaration that the rights of the public as well as all persons over such roads are extinguished. 8.7 The notification envisaged under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is different from an acquisition notification under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other Act providing for acquisition of land. The acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is only relating to the land belonging to a private individual or an entity and it is the ownership rights in respect of that land which would get vested with the State on the acquisition being completed. 63 8.8 In so far as the land reserved for a park, road, etc., like a ‘kaludari’ or Bandi Jadu the said land always vested with a State but with a right of public and individuals being recognized therein. In that background, I am unable to agree with contention of Sri.T.Swaroop learned counsel for the petitioner that upon the acquisition of land the right of the public to use a pathway or a ‘kaludari’ would stand extinguished and that the APMC was entitled to make use of the entire land. 8.9 In the present case there is only an acquisition notification which has been issued and the procedure under Section 68 has not been followed by the State. In fact, the contention of the State is that the said demarcation or reservation of the land for public use has not been disturbed and the public would continue to have a right to use the said Kharab land. 8.10 That being the case the procedure under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 not having been followed the right of the general public and/or the individuals to make use of the ‘kaludari’ would continue in the said land and as such the beneficiary of the acquisition cannot now contend that the right of the public use has been extinguished. 8.11 Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that merely on acquisition of land under any Prevalent land Acquisition Act right of the public in the ‘‘B Kharab’ land subject matter of acquisition would not stand automatically extinguished, but the procedure under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would have to be followed for such extinguishment. 64 8.12 Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that a beneficiary of an acquisition cannot claim that once a land acquired has been handed over to the beneficiary the ‘B Kharab’ flowing along with the said land would also vest with the beneficiary, with the right of the general public being automatically extinguished. 11. Answer to point No.3: Can the reliefs sought for in the writ petition be granted? 11.1. In view of my answers to points No.1 and 2 the notice issued by the Thashildar calling upon the petitioner to keep the ‘B Kharab’ land designated for ‘kaludari’ free of any obstruction cannot be found fault with. Consequently, the order passed by the Executive Officer on that basis reserving the land and directing the petitioner-APMC to remove the compound wall obstructing the ‘kaludari’ cannot also be found fault. 11.2 The petitioner cannot encroach or enclose any land reserved for public use in terms of Section 67 without following the procedure under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs which are sought for. 11.3 At this stage Sri.T.Swaroop., learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to approach the jurisdictional authorities under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act or for shifting of the location of the existing ‘kaludari’. Liberty is always available to the petitioner to approach said authorities and as such no further liberty is required to be granted by this Court. 65 12. Answer to point No.4: what order? With the above observations, the petition stands dismissed.” 24. A little earlier another coordinate Bench in SENA VIHAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R) v. SRI BANDARAPPA BHAKTHADIGALA SANGHA (R) – R.F.A. No.23 of 2017 decided on 08-09-2023 set at naught the order of the civil Court on the score even one gunta of pot kharab land which belongs to Government cannot be taken away by private citizen. Coordinate Benches of this Court in THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER and SENA VIHAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R) v. BANDARAPPA BHAKTHADIGALA SANGHA (R) have reiterated this principle with clarity: even a single gunta of Government pot kharab land cannot be appropriated by private citizens. 25. It is however a trite law that a FIR is not an encyclopaedia of offences. In the teeth of the afore-narrated facts, the crime ought to be investigated into. The accused may be added 66 or accused may be dropped; the offences may be added and the offences may be dropped. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court which holds that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of offences becomes apposite in the obtaining facts. The Apex Court in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) 2 (2021) 19 SCC 401 67 In the light of the afore-narrated facts, glaring enough they are, the allegations disclose serious and triable issues, which demand thorough investigation. Thus, the armoury from the arsenal of Smt. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel for the complainant would far outweigh the armoury from the learned senior counsel Sri Y. R. Sadashivareddy and Sri B. K. Manjunath, learned counsel for petitioners. 26. The fulcrum of the complaint is of land grabbing. Land grabbing by ordinary citizens is a serious illegality. Land grabbing by those clothed with political power strikes at something far deeper—it erodes public faith in governance itself. When custodians of public trust become beneficiaries of alleged public wrongs. This Court cannot permit investigation to be throttled at inception in a matter of such gravity. To interdict investigation, at this stage, would amount to shutting the door on truth, before it has even entered the room. Investigation, therefore, is not merely warranted; it is indispensable. 68 27. For all the aforesaid reasons, these petitions, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the issue in the lis and would not bind or influence the investigation or further proceedings. Having regard to the fact that the complaint dates back to 2016 and the crime to 2017, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the investigating agency to conclude the investigation with utmost expedition and, in any event, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ