B N VASUDEVA REDDY Vs. R V DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to set aside the order dated 18.01.2016 passed in PCR No.44/2015 by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru and direct that the cognizance of the case to be taken and consequently, refer the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts as narrated by the petitioner herein is that, the Government of Karnataka has acquired 820 acres of land in Hoodi Patandur Agrahara, Sonnenahalli, Marathahalli, Kundalahalli villages of then Bangalore South Taluk presently Bangalore East Taluk for formation of Export Promotion Industrial Parks (herein referred to as 'EPIP'). Of that 280 acres related to the I phase of development while 540 acres related to the II phase and out of 540 acres, possession to an extent of 281 acres 21 guntas was taken over and the II phase of EPIP was formed. The possession of the remaining 139 acres 2 guntas was not taken and these lands by lay very close to the II phase of EPIP that was developed and consequently this unutilized and undeveloped 139 acres and 2 guntas of acquired land became commercially very valuable. To the knowledge of petitioner-the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (henceforth referred to as 'KIADB') has spent more than 100 crores to develop the I and II phases of EPIP. The Inspection report of the Committee constituted by the CEO and EM of KIADB dated 4.7.2003 to arrive at the compactness of the area submitted a report dated 5.8.2003 recommending that survey numbers 146, 160, 162, 159(P) of Hoodi village, Sy.Nos.1, 53, 11(P), 23, 24, 25, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17 of Sonnenahalli village and Sy.Nos.134, 19, 18, 16, 15, 14, 9, 36/2, 36/3 and 37 of Kundalahalli and excluding Sy.No.52 of Sonnenahalli could be acquired for ensuring compactness and availability of land for the entrepreneurs. Even though the acquisition of land was completed and despite the fact that property has been vested in the KIADB, the respondent who was then Minister in-charge, in conspiracy and in collusion with the land owners, de-notified 139 acres in terms of a notification bearing No.CI 200 SPQ 98 dated 12004.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-complainant, so also, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel on record for the respondentaccused.