Karnataka High Court Allows Probe Against MLA For Allegedly Granting Govt Land To Ineligible Persons

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Congress MLA K.Y.Nanjegowda and three others seeking to quash a criminal case registered against them alleging the grant of government land worth around Rs 150 crore to ineligible persons in his capacity as Chairman and Members of Malur taluk Land Grant Committee in 2019.

Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and permitted further investigation against the petitioners noting that investigation should not be paused merely because one of the accused is an MLA. 

Merely because one of the petitioners is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, it is no law that no investigation should be conducted. As it is trite that every one, whether individually or collectively, is and are under the supremacy of the law; whoever they may be, however high may be, they are under the law, how powerful they are hardly matters, in a nation governed by rule of law.  

The first petitioner, at the relevant time, served as the Chairman of the Land Grant Committee for Malur Taluk, representing the Malur Constituency in Kolar District. The other petitioners were also members of this committee, established under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

The second respondent filed a complaint accusing the committee, during the tenure of the first petitioner as Chairman, of granting lands based on fabricated documents and bogus records. These alleged actions, according to the complaint, resulted in the unlawful allocation of public lands to ineligible beneficiaries.

On August 30, 2022, the second respondent attempted to file a complaint with the local police, seeking to initiate criminal proceedings based on these allegations. However, the jurisdictional police declined to register the complaint, citing an already ongoing investigation into a separate matter. 

Despite this rejection, the second respondent approached a Special Court designated for cases involving sitting and former MPs and MLAs. Under Section 200 of CrPC, they filed a private complaint seeking the court's intervention. The Special Court, on October 15, 2022, referred the matter for further investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

In response to this development, the petitioners approached the Karnataka High Court, which issued an interim order staying the proceedings based on the argument that multiple FIRs and complaints on the same cause of action were prohibited by the Supreme Court's ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors (2001) 6 SCC 181.

Findings:

After carefully considering the arguments and reviewing the case's particulars, the High Court concluded that the reference made by the Special Court for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was lawful and not in violation of the principles outlined in T.T. Antony's judgment.  

The Court reasoned that the first complaint against the former Tahsildar was unrelated to the subsequent complaint against the current petitioners. While the first complaint concerned land grants, the new complaint alleged a more extensive pattern of land misallocation involving multiple instances. Therefore, these complaints did not constitute multiple FIRs on the same cause of action.

“Several instances of grant of lands by changing title are alleged against the former Tahsildar and nobody else is even arrayed as accused. Investigation commences. In the considered view of this Court this was farce of a registration of crime for offence under Sections 192-A and 192-B of the Act.”

Referring to the provisions invoked under the Act against the former tahsildar the bench said

“Sections 192-A and 192-B of the Act cannot be alleged against public servants as they are offences to be alleged against public who would grab the land and who should be notified about such encroachment/grabbing prior to registration of the crime. It is nowhere indicated that Sections 192-A and 192-B of the Act can be alleged against a public servant. Even then investigation is pending and is pending against the Tahsildar.”

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, which suggested misuse of power and misappropriation of government land. 

“In all, what the complainant alleges is, close to 80 acres of government land is granted on paper by misuse of power by the Committee, which has generated a loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of 150 crores.”

It noted that even though one petitioner was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, this status did not exempt them from investigation. 

“Prima facie, the Government land is bartered away by the Chairman and Members of the Committee and the office is treated as their personal fiefdom, which has resulted in loot of Government land. If the aforesaid facts form the part of the complaint, crime ought to have been registered against the accused as they were all on the face of it cognizable offences. But, alas, it is not, as an endorsement emerges ostensibly on the score that the complaint was against the powers that be, at the relevant point in time.”

Further, the bench noted that this was not a case of multiple FIRs being registered against the accused on the same cause of action but for offences against different accused. When such glaring offences were projected before the jurisdictional Police against the powerful, the Police ought to have registered the crime and not issue an endorsement, it opined.

The Court highlighted the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that every individual, regardless of their position or influence, remained accountable under the law.

“Merely because the powers that be are involved in a particular crime, the jurisdictional police cannot shut their eyes when such offences are brought before them, as the offences were cognizable and the crime is registered in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF U.P, which directed immediate registration of the complaint when cognizable offences are brought before the Police.”

Further, it remarked, 

“The trust with which the power is entrusted to the powers that be, has been thrown to the winds albeit prima facie. An investigation in the least was necessary for the glaring offences alleged. Merely because one of the petitioners is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, it is no law that no investigation should be conducted.”

The Court rejected the petition and dissolved the interim order that had stayed the proceedings, allowing the investigation to proceed.

“As it is trite that every one, whether individually or collectively, is and are under the supremacy of the law; whoever they may be, however high may be, they are under the law, how powerful they are hardly matters, in a nation governed by rule of law.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J.Chouta, a/w Advocate R Sashi Kumar for Petitioners.

HCGP Mahesh Shetty, for R1.

Advocate S. Umapathi, for R2.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 377

Case Title: K Y Nanjegowda & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Writ Petition No 22072 of 2022.

Click Here To Read/Download Order