Land Denotification Case| Special Court Orders Registration Of Criminal Case Against Former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge B. Jayantha Kumar, dealing exclusively with criminal cases related to elected representatives, in its order dated March 26 said, "Register a Special Criminal Case against the accused No.2 Sri B.S.Yeddyurappa for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Issue summons to accused No.2 for his attendance only after filing of list of witnesses as required under Sec.204(2) Cr.P.C and the process fee is paid."

The direction was given while hearing a private complaint filed by one Vasudeva Reddy alleging offences punishable under Sec.120, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' 2 PCR 51/2013 for short) and for the offences punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Case Background:

After hearing the complainant, the 23rd Addl. City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru City, referred the complaint for investigation under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, against accused No.1 R.V.Deshpande and accused No.2 Sri B.S.Yeddyurappa.

Deputy Superintendent M.G.Shankaranarayana, registered a case in Cr.No.11/2015 for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. As against the order referring the complaint for investigation, Deshpande approached the high court which allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against him by order dated 09.10.2015.

Yeddiyurappa also approached the High Court against the order dated 18.02.2015 for referring the complaint for investigation and sought to quash the private complaint. The writ petition came to be dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by order dated 22.12.2020.

After investigation, the police filed 'B' Final Report against accused No.2 stating that no offences appear to have been committed by accused No.2 under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of P.C.Act. In 2021 the court rejected the 'B' Final Report and consequently directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter further, and to file Final Report / Additional Final Report expeditiously as per law.

On 21.08.2021, Deputy Superintendent M.G.Shankaranarayana filed Additional 'B' Final Report and on 17.09.2021, the counsel for the complainant filed a protest petition. On hearing the counsel for the complainant, the Court rejected the 'B' Final Report filed and consequently, took cognizance against accused No.2 B.S.Yeddiyurappa.

Complaint filed by the Reddy:

It was said B.S.Yeddiyurappa was then Deputy Chief Minister from 3.2.2006 and 8.10.2007 and it is alleged that he denotified certain lands without any public interest or public purpose and denotification was illegal or a rank abuse of public office without any public interest.

He denotified lands that were covered by the final notification dated 7.5.2004 and the illegal denotification favoured private persons without any public benefit and he ordered and secured denotification of 15 lands in favour of private persons through rank abuse of his office.

It was also said that this complaint rests on public documents and on the basis of those documents, there exists documentary material for this Court to summon the accused B.S.Yediyurappa pursuant to the previous act of taking of cognizance by this Court.

Further it was said that the owners of the lands have made common representation to KIADB seeking denotification of their lands through a land owner named Sri H.Munireddy. The CEO of KIADB did not perceive merit in the aforesaid representation of the land owners and he seriously expressed his opinion as to how the proposed denotification of those lands would defeat the public interest and impose a substantial burden upon the public exchequer.

The complaint said, "B.S.Yediyurappa proceeded to order denotification of those 15 parcels of land in favour of private persons on 16.6.2006 by assigning a range of dubious, dishonest and false explanations. As directed by Sri B.S.Yeddiyurappa, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Government proceeded to denotify the lands that were specified by him and in his order."

Court findings:

The court went through the report submitted by Additional Secretary (Mines), on the request of the accused No.2 and this proceedings goes to show that the present accused No.2, the then Deputy Chief Minister stated that there is no need to implement the orders of the previous Minister at paras 239 to 242 and he has asked to examine the representation of Sri H.Munireddy and others and get a report from KIADB and submit a report with the opinion of Principal Secretary.

The bench said, "These proceedings further go to show that on 06.10.2004, Harish Gowda, the then CEO, KIADB sent a report to the Government that all the 35-00 Acres of land deleted should be again notified under Sec.28(4) and distributed to various I.T. giant companies like M/s.Honey Well Ltd., M/s.Huwai Technologies Ltd., etc. In the said report, he stated that the lands proposed for deletion are adjoining the BDA Ring Road, if these lands are deleted from acquisition proceedings there will be no connectivity to the remaining lands and even if it is tried to give connectivity from any corner of the Ring Road, the extent of remaining lands will be very less and the cost of developing will be very exhorbitant and hence, he has opined that it would not be appropriate to delete the lands from acquisition as requested by Sri H.Munireddy."

Further the Law Department, Advocate General and Sri B.V.Sabarad, Advocate of KIADB have all said that after the publication of final notification under Sec.28(4), there is no provision for deleting or excluding the lands from acquisition and finally it is stated that having regard to the wholesome principles in the matter of vesting, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the provisions of Section 28(5) of KIADB Act, it is not possible to withdraw the lands from acquisition, even if possession is not taken and award is not passed in cases of acquisition under KIADB Act, 1966.

The court observed, "The complainant is very much relying on the report of the CEO, KIADB, Law Department, Advocate General and Sri B.V.Sabarad, Advocate of KIADB and opinion of Additional Secretary (Mines)."

The court then opined, "Keeping in view of the law as discussed above and keeping in view the opinion expressed by the CEO, KIADB, Law Department, Advocate General and Sri B.V.Sabarad, Advocate of KIADB and Additional Secretary (Mines) for not to issue denotification of lands, I am of the opinion that prima facie it cannot be said that de-notification has been ordered by the accused No.2 in exercise of the lawful powers vested in him."

Referring to the closure report submitted by the police which has opined that none of the witnesses of whom they recorded statements stated that they have paid amount to accused No.2 for denotification of lands and therefore, there is no material or evidence to file charge sheet against accused No.2.

The court said, "This court, while passing an order for taking cognizance, observed that Section 13(1)(d) doesn't say that there must be illegal gratification or payment of money. This Court observed that the I.O. has not conducted investigation in the right perspective manner and not analysed the provisions of law and hence, this Court rejected the 'B' Final Report."

Following which the court held, "I am of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused by registering a Special Criminal Case and summoning the accused No.2 for his attendance and give an opportunity to the complainant to establish his allegations against the accused No.2."

It added, "I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant at this stage. He has made out a prima facie case against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."

Case Title: Vasudeva Reddy v. B.S. Yediyurappa

Case No: PCR No. 51 / 2013

Appearance: Advocate K.V.Dhananjay for complainant.