Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating Case Against Ex-MLA Lingesh, Others Accused Of Bartering Away ₹750 Cr Worth Govt Land
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a cheating and criminal conspiracy case lodged against former MLA Lingesh K S–who was the Chairman of a committee for regularisation of land between 2016-2023, after "prima facie" observing that the committee had bartered away government land as if it was its personal property.
It had been alleged that the committee–Bagair Hukum Saguvali Samithi had created records and bartered away Government lands to an extent of 2750 acres to 1430 bogus beneficiaries, valued at more than 750 crores in Lingesh's constituency at Belur, who was the then Chairman. The plea before the high court, for quashing of the case was moved by Lingesh as well as other members of the committee.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Lingesh and others in its order said, “...I hold that Bagair Hukum Committee has acted Bagair Kanoon, albeit, prima facie”.
The high court observed that if the petition is "entertained" and proceedings against the petitioners is closed, it would amount to putting a "premium on the illegality committed by the Chairman and Members of the Samithi" and accepting the bartering away of Government lands as if they are "self-acquired private properties of the Chairman and members of the Samithi". The prosecution was initiated after a private complaint was filed by K C Rajanna.
The petitioners argued that the entire complaint is bald and vague. They contended that the details of what are the lands that are granted or what are the documents that are fabricated to grant the lands in favour of fictitious persons is not forthcoming from the complaint.
The complainants counsel countered the plea saying the inquiry report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner clearly holds that all the lands granted were bogus based upon fake genealogical tree certificates and granted to fake beneficiaries. Thus the government land in this manner is illegally donated for personal gains of the members of the Chairman, members of the Samithi and officers, they said.
Findings
The bench noted that the Bagair Hukum Saguvali Samithi was constituted for the purpose of regularisation of lands by unauthorised occupants as obtained under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Referring to the Assistant Commissioners report the court said “The original form 53 application is not there in 99% of the files presented to the Samithi during the period from 2016 to 2022. The file processing is based on handwritten ledger extract, a copy prepared by the Village Accountants and the Sheristedars. The Tahsildar's spot inspection is indicative of the fact that the lands granted are not even present in the files, no inspection took place and in some cases records are destroyed to evade proof and lands were granted on fake family genealogical certificates notarized and have been granted to fake beneficiaries.”
“Decision was taken by the Chairman, in some grants made to the persons who were on the score that they were holding unauthorised lands that did not even belong to Belur Taluk," it added.
The court further observed that with respect to persons who did not belong to Belur Taluk, who had produced "fake and bogus certificates", the Samithi had granted them lands or regularised those lands as the case would be. The court after considering the Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner's reports prima facie concluded that the government lands were "illegally bartered away".
"The report of the Tahsildar forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner and the detailed report of the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner all of which would unmistakably, albeit prima facie, lead to a conclusion that Government lands are illegally bartered away, as if they are the personal properties of members of the Samithi and the office is treated as their personal fiefdom," the court said.
It added “It is not one, 10 or 100 acres; the lands that are bartered away are 2750 acres which then valued at `750/- crores.”
Rejecting the petition, high court said that cannot be countenanced by law and the matter would at the very least require an investigation, as it "involves a maze of facts".
Case Title: Lingesh K S & Others AND State of Karnataka
Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli for Advocate Srinivas Rao S S
Counsel for State of Karnataka : Additional SPP B.N Jagadeesha
Counsel for Complainant: Advocate Umapathi S
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 406.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5030 OF 2023