The Special Court can try land grabbing offences under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act but lacks jurisdiction over IPC offences punishable beyond three years, which must be handled by a Magistrate.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State.

2. This revision petition is filed against rejection of discharge application filed by the revision petitioner vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that BMTF Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 192-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under Section 420 of IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had indulged in the act of land grabbing and the Police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. Hence, application is filed for discharge.

4. While seeking discharge, main contention of the petitioner is that without verifying the title deeds, the Revenue Inspector has given the report and on the basis of the report, the Police registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. Even in the charge sheet, the extent of encroachment and survey numbers have not been stated. It is further contended that he is not the owner of survey numbers mentioned in the charge sheet and also contend that Land Grabbing Court has no jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and this Court can try only the offence under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is also contended that when the Court does not have any right to proceed against the petitioner, ought to have discharged the petitioner.

5. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that on plain reading of Section 2(f) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (‘the Act’ for short) it clearly goes to show that every activity of grabbing of any land without any lawful entitlement amounts to land grabbing and, in that light, accused without there being any entitlement has fabricated the documents with an intention to grab the Government land and as such, this Court is having jurisdiction to try the case. It is further contended that as per Section 3 of the Act, the land grabbing in any form is prescribed and declared unlawful and any activity connected with or arising out of the land grabbing shall be an offence punishable under the Act and there are sufficient material that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as well as the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

6. The Land Grabbing Court, having considered the grounds and material on record, particularly the charge sheet allegations and also when the contention was taken that IPC offence cannot be invoked, invoked Section 2(f) of the Act and extracted the same in paragraph No. 12 of the order. Having taken note of the same and Section 3 of the Act and also considering the charge sheet filed for the offence punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 420 of IPC and so also Section 9(1) of the Act, comes to the conclusion that it can try the offence under Section 420 of IPC which is arising out of the alleged act of land grabbing or to grab the land and extracting Section 9(1) of the Act comes to the conclusion that this Court can try the offence under Section 420 of IPC and it will not take away the jurisdiction of this Court, that too, when Section 3 of the Act clearly shows that any activity connected with or arising out of land grabbing shall be an offence punishable under the Act and dismissed the discharge application. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, present revision petition is filed before this Court.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that Land Grabbing Court failed to notice that the prosecution has filed final report/charge sheet without verifying the ownership of the alleged lands in question, admittedly the concerned survey officials themselves a