Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19156
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G. PANDIT, C.M. POONACHA, JJ
SRI KRC SHEKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 13778/2023
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SRI.B.S. KARTHIKEYAN.
Legal representatives can be held liable for actions of the deceased if they continue the alleged illegal acts, requiring factual determination at trial.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 227 - Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 - Writ petition challenging the dismissal of discharge application by Special Court - Petitioners claimed vicarious liability cannot be imposed post-death of K.R.C. Sekar - Court held that factual issues regarding encroachment by petitioners require trial - Order dated 10.03.2023 dismissed as without merit. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 13, 18)
(B) Vicarious Liability - Legal representatives can be held liable for actions of deceased if they continue the alleged illegal acts - The court noted that the petitioners had allegedly put up slabs over the storm water drain after the death of K.R.C. Sekar. (Paras 13, 14)
(C) Jurisdiction of Special Court - The Special Court has jurisdiction to hear matters related to land grabbing and encroachments under the Act, and the continuation of proceedings against legal representatives is valid. (Paras 6, 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Special Court dismissing their discharge application in relation to alleged encroachment on a storm water drain by their deceased relative, K.R.C. Sekar. The BBMP claimed the petitioners had continued the alleged encroachment post-2013.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were factual in nature, requiring trial, and upheld the Special Court's order.
Issues: Whether the Special Court's order dismissing the discharge application was erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuation of proceedings against legal heirs is permissible if they are alleged to have committed the acts in question, and factual disputes must be resolved at trial.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts, Bengaluru (Court Hall – 2)1 in L.G.C. (G) No.1811/2019, whereunder the discharge application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure2 has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that one Sri K.R.C. Sekar who is the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 was the absolute owner in occupation and possession of the property bearing site Nos.48 to 51 situated at Adugodi Village, Begur, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. That a building has been constructed by the said K.R.C. Sekar over the site Nos.48 and 49 after obtaining approval from the BBMP. That during the year 1984, the land in site Nos.50 and 51 was dug to form a storm water drain which was allowed to pass the said sites.
That the BMTF police attached to BBMP registered a case in Crime No.103/2012 against the said K.R.C. Sekar alleging that he has put up illegal structures over the storm water drain.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the BBMP came to the property on 12.08.2023 and demolished a portion 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Special Court’) 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ of the slab constructed over the storm water drain and they continued to demolish the slab put over the storm water drain day by day and the construction put up on the storm water drain was demolished in the year 2013 itself by the BBMP and the encroachment was cleared. That subsequently, BBMP have demolished the said slab to an extent of 1242 sq.ft. and again put up a slab over the storm water drain to an extent of 1242 sq.ft by themselves and the accused persons have no role in putting up the said slab over the storm water drain to the extent of 1242 sq.ft. It is contended that the said K.R.C. Sekar died on 22.08.2017 and in view of the settled position of criminal law, the vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the legal heirs of K.R.C. Sekar. Hence, it is contended by the petitioners that they are liable to be discharged from the proceedings initiated by the BBMP before the Special Court.
4. It is forthcoming that said K.R.C. Sekar filed a suit in O.S. No.6138/2013 against the Commissioner and Assistant Executive Engineer of BBMP seeking for an injunction to restrain them from demolishing the slab put up over the storm water drain built over the site Nos.51 and 52. In the said suit, an application was made by the respondent –BBMP, subsequent to which the suit was transferred to the Special Court to be tried in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act , 20113 and registered as LGC(T) No.153/2019. Pursuant to the notice issued, the petitioners and BBMP entered appearance before the Special Court in the said proceedings.
The Special Court, thereafter, after hearing the matter regarding maintainability of the suit, vide order dated 06.08.2019, dismissed the same as is not maintainable and further directed the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP to initiate the proceedings against the legal representatives of K.R.C. Sekar as they have put up slabs over the storm water drain.
5. Consequently, BBMP initiated proceedings against the petitioners which have been registered as LGC(G) No.1811/2019 . The petitioners who arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in the said proceedings entered appearance and the petitioners filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The BBMP filed its objections to the said application. The Special Court vide its order dated 10.03.2023, dismissed 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ the said application. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the alleged encroachment of the storm water drain was in the year 2013 which have been cleared by the BBMP on 12.08.2013 and that the Act cam
