SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.10076 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NITHYA SHAMBHAVANANDA @

R. NARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O N. RAMASAMY R/O NO.B-11, “SHANTHI APARTMENT”

18/21, E.T.K. ROAD, 1ST CROSS STREET ALWARPET, CHENNAI-600018 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. AJAY KADKOL.T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER BIDADI POLICE STATION BIDADI … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C., SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2020 IN S.C.NO.86/2014 BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGAR ORDERING THE ATTACHMENT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.251 HEGGADEGERE VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGAR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT UNDER SECTION 83 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND WHICH ORDER CAME TO BE CONFIRMED VIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2020 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 84 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY REJECTING THE SAID APPLICATION.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2021, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

Petitioner Advocates:AJAY KADKOL T ,Respondent Advocate:

ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for certiorari to stay the order dated 5.6.2020 passed in S.C.No.86/2014 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramanagara ordering the attachment of the petitioner’s property bearing Survey No.251, Heggadegere village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore Rural District under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.), confirmed by order dated 29.06.2020 on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of Cr.P.C.

2. FACTS:

2.1. The petitioner claims to have completed his schooling at Lawrence School-Lovedale and is a holder of a graduate degree in Bachelors of Arts-Economics from the Ramakrishna Mutt Vivekananda College, Chennai. He further claims to be a member of a respectable business community identified as “Chettiars – Nagarathars” in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is a very affluent person belonging to a high Society business family. The petitioner, along with his other family members, is said to own 500 acres of coffee plantations in the region of Coorg, Karnataka, apart from holding 200 acres of agricultural lands in Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is also stated to own a business establishment engaged in coffee curing activities catering to over more than ten thousand tons of coffee to the markets not only in India but also beyond the boundaries of the country.

2.2. The petitioner allegedly owns and possesses several immovable properties that are situated across the State of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is stated to be involved in philanthropic activities such as providing skill training and employment for the underprivileged, nurturing the educational and social needs, setting up Goshala, distribution of milk and other dairy products free of cost to children and members of economically weaker sections and deserving sections of the society, etc.

2.3. It is contended that one such Goshala Housing more than 300 cows is set up by the petitioner in immovable bearing in Sy.No.251, Heggadegere village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

2.4. In S.C. No. 86/2014, which is pending on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, the said Judge by way of his order dated 5.6.2020 passed under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. is alleged to have called upon the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District to attach the property bearing Sy.No.251, Heggadegere village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, on the ground that the said property was belonging to one Sheelam Gopal Reddy.

2.5. Sheelam Gopal Reddy is accused No.2 in the said case, who had remained absent despite issuance of court notice and order of proclamation against him for the purpose of securing his presence in the said case despite the prosecution being fully aware that the attached property belongs to the petitioner.

2.6. It is contended that the aforesaid property came to be vested in the petitioner vide a registered agreement of sale dated 27.6.2018 executed by Sheelam Gopal Reddy, who was the erstwhile owner of the property after receiving a total consideration of Rs.2,25,75,000/- through his son and Power of Attorney Yasaswi Sheelam Reddy.

2.7. On the date of the agreement, the entire sale consideration except for a meagre sum of Rs.2,25,000/- which constitutes a minuscule fraction came to be paid by the petitioner to the vendor. Immediately thereafter, i.e., on the very next date of the agreement, the petitioner who is a purchaser of the aforesaid property came to be put in actual physical possession by the vendor of the property by Yasaswi Sheelam Reddy, who is a power of attorney of Sheelam Gopal Reddy and since then the petitioner is stated to be enjoying the property as an absolute owner with the unconditional right, title and interest over the attached property.

2.8. From June 2018 till now the vendor nor anyone else have raised their little finger vis- a-vis the absolute right, title and exclusive possession and enjoyment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top