RAMEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent/Lokayuktha Police have registered a case against the petitioner herein in respect of offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), 1988 and 120 -B, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the complaint of the second respondent. Initially complaint was filed arraying 13 accused persons, subsequently, by way of a memo, this petitioner being the then Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore District was also brought on record as 14th accused.

(2.) THE essence of the allegation against the accused persons is, the lands in Sy. No. 101/P1, 101/1 and 103 of Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, were acquired for the purpose of formation of 9th Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore, vide Gazette Notification dated 22.7.1991. Accused Nos. 1 to 13 claiming to be the previous owners of the said land, the first accused sought for denotification of the land on the pretext of maintaining Nursery and greenery and the land was denotified subject to condition that he maintains the land as Nursery only; with liberty to the Bangalore Development Authority to acquire the land for its scheme in the event of violation of condition. Accused Nos. 4 to 11 and 14 being the public servants joined hand with accused No. 1 and changed the nature of the land. Though it was not permissible to get the land converted for non -agricultural purpose, this petitioner/the then Special Deputy Commissioner/the Chairman of the Single Window Committee in respect of land conversion, gave a report on 28.10.2006 that the land was changed for non -agricultural purpose and the same was cleverly misused by the third accused. 20 guntas of land was converted for extraneous reason ignoring the legal formalities. Layout plan was approved. There is indiscriminate sanction and approval to allow Apartments to come up. Accused No. 4/the then Commissioner of B.B.M.P; accused No. 5/the then Commissioner of B.D.A; accused No. 6/the then Chairman of B.D.A.; accused No. 7/the then Town Planning Member and accused No. 8/the then Deputy Commissioner have played decisive roles to get the land approved by suppressing the facts. Though relevant and true facts were brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, no action is taken.........

(3.) SRI . Chidanandayya L. M., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the order of the learned Special Judge indicates that he has perused the complaint and given his audience to the complaint, it does not indicate application of mind of the Judge to the complaint allegation, as such, the petitioner herein was not arrayed as the accused in the complaint. It is on the basis of a memo, which was annexed subsequently, he is arrayed as 14th accused, that is how there is not even a filament of allegation against the petitioner in the complaint. The petitioner being the Special Deputy Commissioner, he cannot take decision either to grant or refuse the grant of permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short). As per the Government Circular dated 2.7.2005, any person seeking for conversion of an agricultural land for non -agricultural purpose is required to make application to the Tahsildar of the Taluk and it is the duty of the Tahsildar to enquire all the documents including acquisition, denotification and ownership, etc. and submit a report to the Committee for consideration of the said application. Said Committee only takes a decision either to grant or reject the application filed under Section 95 of the Act. All the Departments/Stakeholders for consideration of the applications are the members of the Committee and the entire Committee is required to consider the applications. As per the official documents, the Tahsildar on receipt of the application for conversion of the land from one M.R. Ramesh, the Revenue Inspector to submit a status report of the lands, who in turn conducted the spot mahazar on 29.1.2005 and reported that land is a private land. It was the lapse on the part of the Tahsildar in not reporting whether the land is acquired or not and whether there is notification/denotification of the land or not. The Committee consisting of all the officials including the officials of the B.D.A. decided to permit use of the schedule property for non -agricultural residential purpose. The representative of the Commissioner of B.D.A., at the time of consideration of the application by the Committee did not bring to the notice of the Committee about the lands having been acquired and denotified with conditions. Even if final notification is issued notifying for acquisition, then also the Committee constituted under Section 95 of the Act is competent to consider the application for conversion of the said land for residential purpose. After resolution of the Committee, it is the Planning Authority, such as Bangalore Development Authority, that will have to sanction the plan for construction of the building The BDA has sanctioned the license plan on the application made by the owners of the land thereby permitting the land owners and the developers to build multistoried residential building For the purpose of issuing an Official Memorandum, the Special Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to the B.D.A on 22.12.2005, enquiring as to whether any licence plan has been granted. The Engineer of the B.D.A. replied that they have already sanctioned the plan and he requested the Special Deputy Commissioner to issue the Official Memorandum under Section 95 of the Act, permitting to use the land for residential purpose. After making all reasonable enquiries for almost ten months of the decision of the Committee, the Official Memorandum is issued. At the stage of Official Memorandum also, there was no complaint against this petitioner or any members of the Committee. The complaint now brought against this petitioner after a lapse of seven years is highly belated. The important of all is, since the petitioner is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)(r) & (viii) of the Act, the complaint against him cannot be entertained without the previous sanction of the State Government under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Even otherwise, the acts done by him as the Chairman of the Committee is protected by Section 196 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Since it is a denotified land, there is no bar to grant permission for use of land for non -agricultural land under Section 95 of the above said Act. Hence, receiving a complaint against him, referring the matter for Police investigation and registration of the FIR is illegal, without the authority of law and liable to be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.