Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ARAVIND KUMAR, B.A. PATIL, JJ.
Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary Department of Revenue – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 433, 10728, 15532, 16281, 17180, 21279, 23095, 23800, 25219, 27437, 27573, 32134, 32849, 33085, 34202, 35384, 36324, 36610, 36640, 36690, 36760, 37713, 40597, 41593, 42959, 43059, 43227, 44273, 44687, 45114, 47747, 47887, 50674, 51160, 52972, 53008, 54035, 54081, 54082, 55683, 56296 of 2017, 235, 463, 777, 1348, 1395, 3032, 3641, 4729, 5389, 5390, 5391, 5704, 6061, 6330, 6376, 6583, 6960, 7868, 8035, 8186, 8187, 8189, 8190, 8191, 8210, 8585, 9116, 9117, 9194, 11029, 11306, 11767, 11973, 11975, 12264, 12614, 13112, 14215, 14390, 15257, 15270, 18327, 18329, 18646, 19751, 19761, 22025, 22817, 22837, 23435, 23437, 23819, 25761, 25768, 26054, 26481, 26545, 26546, 27912, 28214, 28215, 28637, 29281, 32121, 33339, 33741, 34292, 34675, 35489, 36459, 36539, 36737, 36863, 39179, 40311, 41277, 43275, 43352, 45660, 47066, 47540, 47543, 47827, 47841, 49013, 49786, 50668, 51528, 52017, 52106, 53025, 53049, 53204, 53534, 53830, 54914, 55172, 55214, 56168, 56187, 56410, 56539, 56542, 56545, 56630, 56631, 56731, 56988, 57174 of 2018, 302, 1660, 1680, 2960, 3463, 3484, 5393, 5576, 7440, 7844, 8176, 8298, 8821, 8852, 9158, 10906, 11090, 11091, 12900, 12974, 12975, 13029, 13280, 13405, 13737, 14457, 18151, 20311, 20312, 20313, 20314, 20315, 20316, 22667, 22678, 22935, 22988, 23515, 23573, 27336, 27597, 27625, 27680, 27730, 27921, 28421, 28900, 29471, 29604, 29668, 30073, 30187, 31106, 31107, 31322, 31349, 31350, 32184, 33249, 33262, 34572, 35277, 35575, 35579, 36127, 38110, 38701, 38895, 40447, 40448, 40450, 41715, 41716, 42273, 45583, 50244, 50781, 50828, 50955, 50956, 51043, 51101, 51638, 51710, 51830, 51878, 51879, 51926, 51941, 51944, 51945, 51961, 52011, 52032, 52134, 52566, 52609 of 2019, 220, 3190, 9647, 12647 of 2020
Decided On : 19-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Ajesh Kumar S.
For the Respondents: Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, Sri. V. Sreenidhi, Smt. Kavitha H.C.

Point of Law: It is well settled principle of law there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality of a statute. While deciding validity of a statute, it would be endeavour of court to find out the intention of the legislature, which gave rise to birth of enactment under challenge and the purpose which is sought to be achieved through the enactment or in other words the mischief which is sought to be remedied.

Headnote:
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 - Section 9 - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section136 and 192-A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 and 374 - land grabbing unlawful - Prohibits land grabbing - Doctrine of Reference - Contended that the offence created under Act namely, Section 3 declares land grabbing or any activity connected with or arising out of land grabbing unlawful; Section 4(1) prohibits land grabbing; section 4(2) holds a person who “on or after commencement of this Act continues to be in occupation of grabbed land”; and Section 5 criminalises offences in connection with land grabbing. It is contended that land grabbing as defined under section 2(f) consists of several activities and it is committed once for all
Finding of the court: There is no objective satisfaction of requirement of Section 20 of Act recorded by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya and trial Judge has proceeded to transfer the case as if circular withdraws all the cases and transfers same to Special Court constituted under the Act, when in fact, it does not. The said circular categorically makes it clear that only such of cases falling under Act are to be transferred - Section 136(3) having attained finality in favour of fourth respondent, claim of the petitioner ought to fail and as such, we find there is no infirmity in order passed by the Special Court calling for our interference. Hence, petition is dismissed - It is made clear that writ petitions at S. Nos. have been individually dealt, since it touches upon the various facets discussed by us on legal issues and we deem it proper to leave it to Special Court to deal with remaining cases which has not been dealt by us individually, by taking into consideration proposition of law settled herein above and also answered in writ petitions referred to herein above, by adjudicating each of claim made in respective individual writ petitions and also in background of proviso to clause (b) of Sub-Section (5) of Section 9 of KLGP Act 2011 and also in light of Section 22 having been inserted by Act 30 of 2020 - Interim orders passed by this court preventing authorities from demolition of buildings if any or taking possession of land and like coercive steps proposed by said authorities, shall continue and shall be in operation - Special Court committed an error in taking cognizance on the basis of the mere allegations made in the complaint and without there being any basis for the same - It clear that if any orders adverse to the interest of petitioners being passed by Special Court, they would be at liberty to approach this court by filing appropriate petitions and urging grounds on facts only, since the issue regarding constitutionality of Act having been laid to rest -
Result: Order accordingly.

ORDER:

1. In these batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, which has come into force with effect from 20.10.2014 by Karnataka 38/2014 (for short ‘KLGP Act 2011’) has been challenged.

ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONERS:

2. We have heard Sriyuths Ashok Harnahalli for P.N. Manmohan, G. Krishnamurthy for Aparna N., K. Chandrakanth Patil and R. Purushotham, D.N. Nanjunda Reddy for Prakash T. Hebbar, N. Devhadass for M. Veerabhadraiah, Uday Holla for Mohumed Sadiqh B.A., M.B. Anirudh, B. M.Mohan Kumar, K. Shashikiran Shetty for Latha S. Shetty, P.S. Rajagopal for R. Badrinath, Jayakumar S. Patil for Shahul Hameed and Vikar Ahmed, Ian Issidore Prakash Lewis, Dayanand S. Patil, Hashmath Pasha for Nasir Ali, K.G. Raghavan for Dua Associates, learned Senior Advocates appearing for petitioners; Sriyuths S. Ajesh kumar, J.M. Rajanna Setty, D.R. Ravishankar. B. Amarnath, M.R. Rajagopal, Sunil Rao for T. Sheshagiri Rao, Siddharth B. Muchandi, Prakash T. Hebbar, B.R. Krishna, Sreeshail Navalgund, R. Bhadrinath. S.G. Bhagavan, Narayana Swamy P.M. Harish H.V., Kumar J.C., M. Shivaparaksh, Ajith P.B., B.S. Radhanandan, Suresh Desai K., Badri Vishal, H. Srinivas Rao, Ganapathy Bhat Vajralli, Dhananjay Kumar, V. Vishwanath Shetty, Sahul Hameed, N. Ravindranath Kamath, B.V. Mallareddy, C.M. Poonacha, Ajith Kalyan, N. Shankara Narayana Bhat, P.N. Manmohan, V. Vinod Reddy, K.G. Shivanna, Chandrakanth R. Goulay, S. Sudarsan, Shanmukhappa, A. Keshava Bhat, Rajendra Kumar Sungai, Rahul S. Reddy, D.R. Ravishankar for N. Shivakumar, S. Shaker Shetty, R. Badrinath, B.S. Sachin, T.N. Raghupathy, Rameshchandra, D. Hemanth Kumar, Nayanatara for G.L. Vishwanath, V.B. Siddaramaiah, D.C. Srinivasa, K. Jeevan, G.R. Mohan, V. Sanjay Krishna, S. Basavaraj, A. Abhinav Ramanand, Akki Manjunatha Gowda, Y.T. Abhinay a/w Byregowda, M.V. Hiremath, Pundikai Ishwar Bhat, K. Chandan, P.H. Virupakashaiah, K. Ranajan Kumar, Venugopal M.S., Aruna Shyam M., a/w Suyog, S.V. Prakash, P.B. Appaiah, K. Srihari, Sammit S. for S. Shivananda, N.V. Srikanth, Naveed Ahmed, Vigneshwar S. Shsastri, V.R. Prasanna, C.R. Gopalaswamy, H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, S.K. Acharya, Sampat Bapat, K.N. Puttegowda, P.M. Siddamallappa, Sharath S. Gowda, K.R. Srinivasa Patavardhan, T.A. Karumbiah, Lokesh S.G., B.K. Chandrashekar, Nitish for K.V. Narasimhan, D.J. Rakshitha, C.M. Nagabhushana, A.R. Goutham, C.R. Subramanya, B.S. Prasad, V.N. Rakshitha and V. Vidya for K. Raghavendra Rao, C. Parameshwarappa, H.C. Shivaramu for B. Keshavamurthy, G.S. Chidambara, Pruthvi Wodeyar, H.S. Prashanth, Harsha D. Joshi, V. Srenivas, S. Rajendra, H.S. Prashanth, H.S. Dwarakanath, A. Madhusudhana Rao, Kaleemullah Sheriff, A.G. Shivanna, Sreepada H.R. and B.R. Prasanna, Lohitaswa Banakar, M.D. Basavanna, G. Harish, B. Keshava Murthy and G.R. Prasanna, K.R. Ramesh, Yathish J. Nadiga, B.S. Jeevan Kumar, K.J. Bhojanna, N. Sukumar Jain, S.V. Shastri, Halesha R.G., Ravikumar N.R., B.H. Shamanna, K.R. Bharadwaj, K. Pradeep Naik, B.N. Sunil Kumar, M.S. Harish Kumar, Nagiah, S. Rajashekar, V.D. Raviraj, H.S. Kalyan Kumar, P.P. Hegde, G.S. Praveen Kumar, Mahaveer K. Jain a/w Nandish Patil, K.R. Rajendra, George Joseph for Dua Assts, A. Vijay Kumar Bhat, Patil Dayananda Subraya Gouda, B.Ranga Swamy B., M.L. Jagadeesh, M.S Raghavendra Prasad, K.R. Krishnamurthy, Aditya Kumar H.R. for Dayananda S. Patil, learned Advocates appearing for petitioners.

ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENTS:

3. We have heard Sriyuths Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Advocate General a/w V. Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate and H.C. Kavitha, HCGP M.V. Thanuja, Vivek Yavagal, N.R. Jagadeeswara, Kempanna, B.S. Manjunath, H. Shanthi Bhushan, H. Sridhara, B.R. Satish, N. Subba Shastry, Pradeep J.S., D. Mallikarjuna Swamy, K. Hanumantharayappa, Manu Kulkarni A/W. Srushti Widge for Poovayya and Co. Chokka Red

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Kar) 81

Cases Referred (125)