The petitioner is before this Court calling in question FIR

registered in Crime No.148 of 2020 for offences punishable

under Sections 96 and 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964 (8the Act9 for short) pending before the XLI Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore

City.

2. Heard Sri K.Suman, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondents.

- 3 -

3. Sans details, brief facts are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be the owner of certain extent of

land in Sy.No.12 measuring 12 guntas and Sy.No.10/3

measuring 6.3 guntas of Vaderahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk. Out of the aforesaid extent of lands, the

petitioner sold 6 guntas in Sy.No.12 and 3.15 guntas in

Sy.No.10/3, to one Ninan Eapon in terms of registered sale

deed dated 05-03-2004. The petitioner claims to be currently

the absolute owner and in possession of 6 guntas of land in

Sy.No.12 and 3.15 guntas of land in Sy.No.10/3.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that record of rights or

RTCs9 did not correctly reflect the holdings of the petitioner as 6

guntas in Sy.No.12 and 3.15 guntas in Sy.No.10/3. Since the

holdings of the petitioner in the revenue records were not

correct, the petitioner appears to have filed an appeal before

the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act,

which was allowed on 27-04-2016, directing the Tahsildar to

incorporate the correct extent of land held by the petitioner.

Thereafter, RTCs9 in respect of the lands were corrected by the

- 4 -

competent authority. It is the further case of the petitioner that

she has constructed two farm houses and cultivated trees in

the said lands and has paid requisite taxes for the said purpose

and also produced photographs of what is there in the land.

5. Things standing thus, a notice was issued by the 1^st

respondent/Police on 19.04.2021, seeking explanation about

the version of the petitioner on a complaint being registered by

the 2^nd respondent in Crime No.148 of 2020. The petitioner

gives a detailed reply on 13-07-2021 narrating her entire

holding and

no

layout whatsoever was being formed.

Notwithstanding the reply given, the Police did not close the

case against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before

this Court calling in question the very registration of crime in

Crime No.148 of 2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 96 and 192A of the Act.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend that as required under Section 192A of the Act,

no notice is issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has not

at all formed any layout for proceedings to be initiated under

- 5 -

Section 192A of the Act, as the petitioner has constructed two

farm houses in the land and has grown several trees.

Notwithstanding the reply, the same is not being considered

and the FIR still hangs on the head of the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that it is

a matter of evidence and trial for the petitioner to come out

clean with regard to any encroachment or forming of any layout

in the said land.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

9. Section 192A of the Act under which proceedings are

instituted against the petitioner requires a show cause notice to

be issued prior to registration of the crime. The Tahsildar could

not have registered the crime without at the outset granting an

opportunity of hearing and without conducting any survey in

the presence of the petitioner. This is by now too well settled, a

- 6 -

principle of law as held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in

the

case

of

SMT.

LALITHA

SASTRY

v.

STATE

OF

KARNATAKA 3 ILR 2008 KAR 4520, wherein the Coordinate

Bench considering this very provision holds as follows:

<2. The main grievance of the petition