Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M. KHAZI, J.
Prestige Estates Private Projects Limited, Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr. T. Arvind Pai and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority, Represented By Its Assistant Executive Engineer and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 6184 of 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W Criminal Petition No. 8786 of 2023, Criminal Petition No. 8790 of 2023, Criminal Petition No. 8982 of 2023
Decided On : 24-06-2025
e
For the Petitioners:Sri. Ganapathi Hegde, SR. Counsel for Sri. Shrikara P.K., Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. Sachin B.S., Advocate For BDA; Smt. Jayanthi R, Advocate For Impleading Applicant
The court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Act, ruling no charges could stand as the complainants lacked ownership of the disputed land.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Grabbing Act, 2011 - Sections 2(e) and 2(f) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings initiated accusing them of illegal land grabbing - The court found that accused Nos.3 and 4 misled BDA regarding ownership and conducted unauthorized construction despite losing title - The proceedings against petitioners were quashed as allegations were not tenable. (Paras 10, 22, 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Powers of High Court - The court can quash criminal proceedings if they are not sustainable or are based on misleading facts - The court reaffirmed that disputed facts cannot be resolved at this stage and must be determined at trial. (Paras 17, 22)
Facts of the case:
The case pertains to a complaint filed by BDA against accused individuals for illegally constructing on land that had been relinquished. Accused 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 challenged their prosecution, arguing ownership transfer and misleading actions by accused 3 and 4. (Para 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that accused 3 and 4 misled BDA and lacked lawful entitlement to the land, thus ruling against the continuation of proceedings against accused 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. (Paras 22, 24)
Issues: The main issues include the legal ownership of land and the propriety of the BDA's allegations against the petitioners concerning land grabbing. (Paras 10, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for proceeding under the Act, the complainants must be the lawful owners of the land; since accused 3 and 4 no longer held title, the claims were unsustainable. (Paras 22, 24)
Result: Crl.P.Nos.6184/2023, 8786/2023, 8982/2023, and 8790/2023 are allowed, and proceedings are quashed against the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' criminal proceedings quashed (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 11) |
| 2. arguments regarding land ownership and prosecution validity (Para 9 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. court's analysis of partnership and land grabbing act (Para 10 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24) |
| 4. definition of land grabbing and its application (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. final order quashing proceedings against petitioners (Para 25) |
ORDER :
(J.M. KHAZI, J.)
In these petitions, petitioners have sought for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them in LGC (P)1298/2018 on the file of Karnataka land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, at Bengaluru.
2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.6184/2023 are arraigned as accused No.2, 1 and 9 respectively.
3. Petitioner in Crl.P.No.8786/2023 is arraigned as accused No.5.
4. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.8982/2023 are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4.
5. Similarly, petitioner in Crl.P.No.8790/2023 is arraigned as accused No.10.
6. Since these petitions are arising out of the same case and involve common discussion, they are clubbed together and disposed off by a common order.
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
8. In LGC(P)1298/2018, a complaint came to be filed by Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) against accused Nos.1 to 10, alleging that originally land in Sy.No.125 of Hosakerehalli and Sy.No.43 of Ittamadu village belong to accused No.3 Kalavati and accused No.4 V.S. Balasubramanyam. They obtained approval of development plan for group housing in the above properties from BDA vide Resolution dated 22.01.1999 and in accordance with the terms of sanction, certain portions of the schedule property were relinquished in favour of BDA for CA and parking/garden and for public purpose. To this effect, they executed Registered Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2000 to an extent of 10,053 Sq.mtrs. However, accused persons have illegally constructed the building, including the said extent of 10,053 Sq.mtrs. In spite of being notified, they have not produced any documents to show that they have any right title or interest or said extent. Thereby the accused have willingly grabbed land to the extent of 10,053 Sq.mtrs belonging to BDA and committed the offence punishable under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Act.
9. Accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 are seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them contending that accused Nos.3 and 4 purchased land in Sy.No.43 of Ittamadu village, measuring 4 acres 20 guntas and Sy.No.125 of Hosakerehalli village, measuring 5 acres 9 guntas through Sale Deed dated 20.06.1980 ('Subject land' for short). On 23.12.1988, they entered into partnership with L.K. Trust and Constitute - Accused No.1 Partnership firm and contributed the subject lands to the assets of the partnership firm as their investment.
9.1 By virtue of such contribution, the subject lands were vested with the partnership firm and became a partnership property. However, without the consent or authority of the other partners, on 22.01.1999, accused Nos.3 and 4 obtained a plan sanction from the BDA and also executed Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2000 in respect of parks and CA sites in favour of BDA. However, the Plan sanction and Relinquishment Deed were not acted upon in any manner. Accused Nos.3 and 4 retired from the partnership firm on 22.05.2004 by receiving a total sum of Rs.5.75 Crores towards full and final settlement of their claim. Accordingly they lost their ownership over the subject lands.
9.2 Accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to develop the subject land. Accused No.1 also executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 23.09.2005 in favour of accused No.2 to develop the project lands. On 18.05.2007, acting under the JDA , accused No.2 obtained plan sanction from the BBMP to put up apartment building on the subject lands. On 29.06.2011, construction is completed and partial occupancy certificate is i
