The land allotment by the Karnataka Government for the construction of "Dr.Vishnuvardhan Memorial" is illegal

Date: 22-Oct-2014

To
The Principal Secretary
Revenue Department
Government of Karnataka
Bangalore

Copy to

Deputy Commissioner
Bangalore Urban District
Kandhaya Bhavana
Kempegowda Road
Bangalore 560 009

Additional Chief Secretary
Department of Forest, Environment And Ecology
Room 708, Gate 2, M.S.Building
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force
Aranya Bhavana
18thCross, Malleshwaram
Bangalore 560 003

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden
Aranya Bhavana
18thCross, Malleshwaram
Bangalore 560 003

Principal Secretary
Department of Law
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore

Subject: Illegal conveyance and anticipated development over an area adjoining a forest land despite objection by the Forest Department: 2 acres of land adjoining the forest land in Survey No. 22 of Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore is sought to be illegally conveyed by the Revenue Department for the purpose of erecting a memorial in the name of Late Dr.Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada film star.

Dear Sir

1. I write here primarily in the interest of the public that largely comprises of the residents of Mailasandra Village at Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and these residents and members of the public may be considered herein to be represented by:

(1) Sri Shivaraj.N, S/o Nagaraju, Aged about 25 years and residing at No.325, Near Hanuman Temple, Mailasandra, R V College Post, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore-560 059 and

(2) Sri Deepak C.N, S/o C.M Nagaraju, Aged about 30 years and residing at No. F-73, 13th Cross, Ist Phase, BEL Layout, Bharath Nagar Bangalore 560 091.
Late Dr. Vishnuvardhan is and will always be remembered as an iconic actor of the Kannada film industry. The rest of this communication is not about the memory of the said great actor.

2. Rather, this communication is about the lawlessness evidenced in the actions of the officers of the Revenue Department and of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District in the matter of conveying a land adjoining a forest land for a non-forest purpose in complete contravention of the relevant regulations.

3. On 4-Mar-2014, the Revenue Department acting through its Principal Secretary had issued a notification (RD 29 LJB 2014 Bangalore) to convey an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy No. 22 of Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore for the purpose of establishment of a memorial in the name of late Dr. Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada actor. A copy of the said notification together with the underlying order is produced herewith as Annexure A.

4. The problem with the aforesaid notification?
Too many.

5. To begin with, this 2 acres of land adjoining a forest land. - that is, Sy.No.22 of Mailasandra village is a land that measures around 109.05 acres. Of this, 79.20 acres is a forest land and it is not in dispute that these 2 acres of land is shown in the records as falling outside the 79.20 acres of forest land. Unfortunately, the Revenue Department appears to have thought that merely because this 2 acres of land falls outside the forest land, it is free to convey the said land for a non-forest purpose. Nevertheless, the Forest Department has been repeatedly bringing to the notice of the Revenue Department through several letters to inform it that they are thoroughly mistaken in assuming as much.

6. A forest land is of course, already protected under the laws in force. However, in order to protect any stretch of forest land, the lawmakers had felt it necessary to create a buffer or protective zone so that they could prohibit deleterious activity in that protective zone. For instance, say there is a forest land and immediately adjoining that land, the Government permits a crowd-congregating activity to come up in that adjoining land. The permitted crowd-congregating activity can generally be expected to endanger the forest growth and wealth at least at the edges and at the boundaries. If the intention of a forest law was to primarily safeguard forest wealth, it could not hope to achieve that objective if the protection would simply stop at the boundary of a forest. The nature of any forest is such that the protection immediately outside its boundary too is a matter of much concern to forest preservation. It is precisely these considerations that gave rise to Rule 41 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. You are invited to pay close attention to the same:

41. Grant of lands by the Deputy Commissioner:-
(1) No land containing valuable trees or other forest growth shall be granted by the Deputy Commissioner, unless the concerned Deputy Conservator of Forests gives his concurrence.
(2) No land from well wooded areas or adjacent to wooded areas in the district or protected forests or within 100 metres of reserved forests shall be granted for occupancy.

7. Now, the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 is clearly binding upon the officers of the Revenue Department as well as upon the Deputy Commissioners.

8. Let us find out about the application of Rule 41(1). It speaks about lands that are sought to be granted by the Deputy Commissioner but contain trees or other forest growth. In such event, what more is required to ensure that the grant is lawfully made? This Rule says that the concurrence of the Deputy Conservator of Forest shall be necessary for the purpose of granting such a land which already has trees or forest growth over it. So, the essential question here is, does the 2 acres of land in question contain trees or other forest growth?

9. The answer, obviously, is ‘yes’. Attached are four photographs of the site as Annexure ‘F’ and you will readily see that there has been substantial forest growth on that site. You may kindly note that the Forest Department was of the impression that this 2 acres of land too is a forest land and I have been informed that the Research Wing of the Forest Department had made several plantations at the said site and had safeguarded the same in the belief that it was a forest land. So, the said Notification dated 04-Mar-2014 is obviously in violation of Rule 41(1) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 as no concurrence has been obtained to the same by the Deputy Conservator of Forest.

10. By the way, how do I know here that the Deputy Conservator of Forest has not already concurred to the grant in question? The various officers of the Forest Department have been repeatedly objecting through letters to the officers of the Revenue Department and the contention taken in those communications make it absolutely clear that the Forest Department is completely opposed to the grant in question though they don’t specifically cite Rule 41(1) but have instead cited Rule 41(2). Further, the two individuals named above have specifically enquired with the officers of the Forest Department and have informed me for the purpose of this communication that there has been no concurrence from the Deputy Conservator of Forest as yet to the purported grant of land. Moreover, the objections that were made by the officers of the Department of Forest would lose all meaning if any such concurrence had already been granted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest. Their objection, however, is rooted in Rule 41(2) and what really does this Rule say?

11. It reads:
(2) No land from well wooded areas or adjacent to wooded areas in the district or protected forests or within 100 metres of reserved forests shall be granted for occupancy.
(Emphasis supplied by us)

12. The first part of this rule is not happily worded and that could have led to much disagreement and confusion. However, the Forest Department is only relying upon the latter part of this rule which is that there shall be no grant howsoever in respect of land situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest. So the only enquiry that must arise in this case is whether the 2 acres of land in Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is within 100 metres of a reserved forest.

13. It is a fact that the Forest Department has been repeatedly urging that the said 2 acres of land is within 100 metres of a reserved forest. I have reviewed the materials that they have communicated to your office and I have not even the slightest shadow of doubt to inform you that the Forest Department has indeed established to the satisfaction of a reasonable person that the 2 acres of land is within 100 meters of a reserved forest. I invite your attention to the several letters that were addressed to the officers of the Department of Revenue and to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban district repeatedly by the Forest Department and to certain letters that were exchanged between the officers of the Forest Department themselves which subsequently formed part of the communication from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department. These letters are:

Sl.No. Date of Letter From To Summary
Annexure ‘B1’ 30-Sep-2014 Deputy Conservator of Forest Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District Objection in terms of Rule 41 (2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969
Annexure ‘B2’ 30-May-2014 Deputy Conservator of Forest Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Objection terms of Rule 41(2)
Annexure ‘B3’ 28-Feb-2014 Deputy Conservator of Forest Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District Objection in terms of Rule 41(2)
Annexure ‘B4’ 11-Feb-2014 Assistant Conservator of Forest Deputy Conservator of Forest Objection in terms of Rule 41(2)
Annexure B5 12-Apr-2012 Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Conservator of Forest Information about the 1935 Notifications
Annexure ‘B6’ 07-Feb-2014 Range Forest Officer Deputy Conservator of Forest Spot inspection Report – that the land falls within 100 metres of the Turahalli Reserve forest
Annexure ‘B7’ 01-Jan-2014 Range Forest Officer Deputy Conservator of Forest Inspection report as in above.

14. The aforesaid letters consistently express a single and the same view that the said 2 acres of land is situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest.

15. Now, let us find out about the material that the Forest Department has in its possession to claim that the said land is situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest?

16. Let me produce a sketch that has been prepared by the Forest Department itself to show that Sy No.22 of Mailasandra village is an area comprising of 109.05 acres and of this, 79.20 acres is Forest land. Let this sketch be called as Annexure’C1’. You will see from this sketch that against the marked square portion which is the forest area, there is an adjoining area to it that is not a forest land and the said 2 acres is to the left edge of that square like forest land. So, it is in fact the case of the Forest Department itself that the said 2 acres of land thus constitutes land other than forest land and is adjacent to that forest land. It is our speculation here that this fact might have led to a great deal of confusion on the part of the Revenue Department – that it is free to deal with this non-forest land without consultation or concurrence from the Forest Department. Of course, the Revenue Department would be grossly wrong in law if it held that view.

17. The next document is Annexure C2 which has been prepared or otherwise endorsed by none other than the Tahsildar of the Bangalore South Taluk himself wherein an augmented sketch clearly shows, again, that the 2 acres of land is adjacent to a forest land. Therefore, it should not be open to doubt whether the 2 acres of land is adjacent to the forest land. It indeed is adjacent to a forest land.

18. That it is established that the site of 2 acres of land in Sy No.22 of Mailasandra village is adjacent to a forest land, how does one establish two more aspects:
a) That this forest land is in law, a ‘reserved forest’ and
b) That being adjacent to a ‘reserved forest’, it is within 100 metres of that ‘reserved forest’?

19. Let us first establish a).

20. Your attention is invited to a notification issued by the Government of the Maharaja of Mysore on 14-Dec-1935. This notification was issued in terms of Section 17 of the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900. It was numbered as G 4906-Ft.154-35-3. What this notification simply did was to classify an area of 514 acres and 29 guntas from four different villages in Kengeri Hobli of Bangalore as a ‘State forest’. A copy of this notification dated 14-Dec-1935 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure ‘D1’. This notification would clearly show that parts of the villages of Mailasandra, Kengeri, Badamanavarthe Kaval and Hemagipura were covered by the said notification. So, this particular notification would show that that the village of Mailasandra was indeed covered by the said notification. However, a further question must arise here on whether Sy.No.22 of Mailasandra village came to be covered by this very notification or through some other notification that had thereby declared the said land as ‘State forest’. Your attention is further invited to Annexure D2. This document goes on to show that Sy No. 22 of Mailasandra village measuring 78 acres and 18 guntas was being taken up for the purpose of constituting the proposed Badamanavarthe Kaval State forest. This document, Annexure D2, would however, show a different notification number though it does bear the date of 14-Dec-1935. So, it would be proper to infer from a perusal of both these documents, Annexure D1 and D2, that Sy. No 22 of Mailasandra was indeed constituted as a ‘State forest’. This is an easily formed contention of a person such as me who is of course, an outsider to these cases. Equally, the Forest Department itself, in its numerous communications has been stating that Sy No. 22 of Mailasandra is in fact, a ‘State forest’ land.

21. So, taking Sy.No.22 of Mailasandra to constitute a ‘State forest’ land, the next question that necessarily arises is that the reference in Rule 41 (2) of the Karnataka Forest rules, 1969 is to a ‘reserved forest’ and not to a ‘State forest’. That is, Rule 41 (2) speaks of a land that is within 100 meters of a ‘reserved forest’ and a land which is situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest cannot be granted at all in terms of the said Rule. Therefore, the question becomes on how the ‘State forest’ that came to be declared as such through the 14-Dec-1935 notification could be treated as a ‘reserved forest’ for the purpose of Rule 41 (2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

22. In answer, please note that the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 to enforce which, the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 has been promulgated states very clearly in Section 23 that:

23. Reserved Forests constituted previous to passing of this Act – (1) Any forest which has been notified as a State Forest under the Mysore Forest Act, 1900 or as a Reserved Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Madras Forest Act, 1882 or the Hyderabad Forest Act, 135F, prior to the date on which this Act comes into force, shall be a reserved forest under this Act.

23. Accordingly, the State forest that was declared as such in terms of the 14-Dec-1935 notifications simply became a ‘reserved forest’ for the purpose of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 in view of what has been said in Section 23 thereof.

24. The next question, obviously, would be on how we would state here that this adjacent site is also within 100 metres of the said ‘reserve forest’?

25. In answer to the above, your attention is invited to two documents, Annexure B6 and B7 that place the ‘spot inspection report’ by the Range Forest Officer to the effect that the entire site area of 2 acres is within 100 metres of the adjacent ‘State forest’.

26. With the aforesaid analysis, there will be nothing that remains for further consideration than to simply conclude that the grant of the 2 acres of land in Sy No 22 of Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South for the purpose of erection of a memorial in the name of late Dr Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada star would be plainly and completely illegal in view of the fact that the said 2 acres is situated within 100 metres of a ‘reserved forest’.

27. You may however note that the various communications from the Forest Department do not explicitly state that the said 2 acres is a ‘reserved forest’ but do retain the same description that it had in the year 1935, that of being a ‘State forest’. Still, as said earlier, by reason of Section 23 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, the said ‘State forest’ has by operation of law become a ‘reserved forest’ and the same would mean that the said site of 2 acres which is within 100 metres of the said reserved forest cannot be granted at all by the Revenue Department for the stated purpose.

28. Your attention is also invited to the fact that this objection is not being raised merely because there is a technical objection that could be made in this case. We honestly believe that the surrounding reserved forest is one that deserves to be protected at all costs and the task of that protection would be severely defeated if the proposed memorial were to be constructed in the said 2 acres of land. Besides, the several communications addressed by the Forest Department make it very clear to the Revenue Department that there are several plantations that were raised in the said 2 acres of land by the Forest Department. Essentially, the said 2 acres of land is not therefore, a barren or a wasteland and the same is further evidenced by a perusal of the three photographs that are marked herewith as Annexure ‘F’.

29. It should be further noted that the considerable tree growth in the said 2 acres of land has been sought to be removed by the trust that has been created for the purpose of managing the said grant of land. I attach herewith, a copy of a letter dated 6-Aug-2014 addressed by Dr.Vishnuvardhan Prathisthana to the Commissioner of the Bruhat Bengaluru Maganagara Palike (BBMP) seeking permission to uproot the several trees on that site. This letter should satisfy the recipients of this communication that the photographs that are appended to this letter do speak to the actual state of affairs on the site in question – that there is enormous tree growth on the site. A copy of this request is produced herewith as Annexure E.

30. Finally, your attention is also drawn to the past experience of the person on whose behalf this letter has been made to you all. Mr Shivraj is a volunteer with the BBMP Forest Cell and it is his own testimony that he has rescued numerous wildlife from the said area and it is their collective concern that the erection of a memorial at the site in question would bring grave danger to the existing population of wildlife in the edges of the reserved forest. You should certainly note that the said reserved forest is a block of nearly 79 acres.

31. This letter has also been marked to the Principal Secretary in the Law Department in view of the fact that two different Departments within the Government of Karnataka are at loggerheads over a given issue as we are of the view that should there arise a genuine disagreement between the two Departments of the Government on the interpretation of any provision of law, it would be desirable for the officers of the Law Department to intervene, to clarify and to reliably interpret the disputed provision in question.

32. However, I must state here that all that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District and the officers of the Revenue Department seem to have done so far in response to the various letters addressed to them by the officers of the Forest Department is to simply maintain a stoic silence and to do nothing more. This kind of a callous response is quite disturbing. There should never have been any need for the officers of the Forest Department to write a series of letters and that too, repeatedly, to the officers of the Revenue Department if only the officers of the Revenue Department had taken the ordinary courtesy to respond to even some of those letters. Such callous disregard to the concerns of a co-ordinate Department of the Government is very unusual and also speaks to a great degree of disorder within the Revenue Department.

33. To end this communication, I would like to request the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District as well as the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to immediately withdraw the notification (Annexure A) that they have issued to grant the said 2 acres of land in Sy No 22 of Mailasandra village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South for the purpose of erecting a memorial in the name of late Dr Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada actor on the ground that the said land is within 100 metres of and adjacent to a reserved forest and is therefore, in violation of Rule 41(2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

34. On a personal note we would like to state that we have come across instances of highly fraudulent and bogus entities being given vast tracts of land by the Government and sometimes, such gifts run into even hundreds of acres and it is truly painful to note that when it came to the task of granting land to erect a memorial in the name of the late Dr Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada star, the Government has simply settled for a relatively small patch of land and that too at a place which should never have been considered for the said purpose. We are fully aware of the fact that the Government does have in its possession, vast tracts of land that could be put to the said use and there is absolutely no manner of compulsion for the Government to give effect to the impugned notification.

35. Finally, it must be said that should the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District as well as the officers of the Revenue Department not take the requisite interest over whether the notification (Annexure A) is lawful for the reasons stated in the communication from the Forest Department and through this letter, we would certainly be constrained to move an appropriate court of law and when we would do so, the grossly unacceptable, indifferent and lawless attitude of the officers of the Revenue Department as well as of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District would be shown to the court to the fullest extent that it deserves to be shown for the purpose of drawing a direction from the court to initiate disciplinary action against the said erring officials.

Sincerely

K.V Dhananjay
Advocate

Speaker to Forest Officers: Do not follow SC and HC Orders

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION No. 15511 - 14 of 2013 (GM – RES) PIL

BETWEEN:



Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others
Petitioners

AND:



Union of India and Others
Respondents

MEMO No.2

1. The Petitioners in the aforesaid matter most respectfully submit that:

2. The Petitioners have sought a continuing mandamus and monitoring by this Hon’ble Court into the efforts of the Government of Karnataka to remove the encroachment of public lands by private persons across the State of Karnataka. More than 13 lakh acres of Government lands are currently under such encroachment. The Petitioners herewith invite the attention of the Government of Karnataka and thereby, the gracious indulgence of this Hon’ble Court towards the issue of encroachment of forest lands across the State:

3. Please see: (in the Writ Petition)

a) Encroachment of Forest lands, Page 37-39, Volume – I;

b) Grounds in support of the Writ Petition, Page 50-62, (Forest Lands – Para VI Pg.54, Para VIII Pg 56, Para XVIII Pg 62), Volume-I;

c) Report of the Joint Legislature Committee (Interim Report-II), Encroachment of Forest lands in the vicinity of Bangalore, Pg.298-310, Volume –II;

d) Report of the Task Force, Forest Encroachments, Pg-494 to 496, Volume – III;

e) Report on ‘Encroachments of 10 acres or more by each encroaching person in the Chikmagalur forest’, Pg-839 to 866, Annexure L, Volume – IV;

f) Summary of the aforesaid report in e) so as to reflect ‘encroachments of 30 acres or more by each encroaching person in the Chikmagalur forest’, (ANNEXURE M1)

4. The petitioners have come across evidence of a very disturbing incident whereby the Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Sri Kagodu Thimmappa, is seen to have convened a meeting of various officers of the Government for the purpose of explicitly directing them to not proceed with the process of eviction of encroachers of forest lands in the several districts of the State.

5. The Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Sri Kagodu Thimmappa had conducted a meeting of legislators from the Malnad districts on 11-Jun-2013 at Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore and to this meeting were summoned, the senior officers of Forest, Revenue, and Social Welfare Departments. Further, this very meeting was also attended by the Hon’ble Minister for Forests. It is not in dispute that at this point of time, the various officers of the Government were engaged in the process of eviction of encroachers from forest lands. Such progress was evidently in the knowledge of the Hon’ble Speaker. The developments that took place in the said meeting are detailed below:



6. The petitioners have come into possession of a note prepared by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) and sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) on 29-Jun-2013. The said note reads as under: (A copy of this document is produced herewith and marked as Annexure M2.)

“It has been found that more than one lakh sixty one thousand acres of forest lands are under encroachment by private individuals. Major chunk of these encroachments are in Shimoga, Chickmaglur, Mangalore, Hassan and Canara circles. Many DCFs in charge of the division, under the guidance of respective Chief Conservator of Forests, have followed procedures contemplated in Sec 64A of KFA 1963 and succeeded in evicting the encroachments in some areas. They have ripped the area and raised seedlings for planting during current rains.

While many divisions have swung into action, Hon’ble Speaker has conducted a meeting of legislators from Malnad districts on 11-06-2013 in Vikas Soudha, which was also attended by Hon’ble Forest Minister and some senior officers of Forest, Revenue and Social Welfare Department. Legislators were united in opposing the action of the department in continuing the process of eviction. Hon’ble Speaker concluded that claims under FRA would be reopened and FRA Committee be reconstituted. He further added that boundaries would be jointly surveyed and deemed forest notification be revisited. He asked forest department not to continue with the encroachment eviction process, until above mentioned actions are finalized. This resulted in entire programme of eviction receiving a setback. Planting programme was obstructed and in many cases, even seedlings were pulled out. In Basavanahalli and Taverekere villages of Chennagiri Taluk, even protests were organized, which was backed by local MLA. As a result planting was prevented in the area. Belligere village of Bhadravathi Taluk received a bigger protest, which was also backed by MLA, Bhadravathi, and planting have remained suspended.”

7. The aforesaid description of the actual state of affairs in an internal document shared between high ranking officers of the Forest Department of the State is simply sufficient enough for any reasonable person to form a strong inference that the further process of eviction of forest lands in the State is fully likely to come in for further illegal interference by persons with power and influence.

8. The fact of the aforesaid illegal interference by the Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly in the very presence of the Hon’ble Minister for Forests fits into the principal argument of these petitioners that regular instructions by this Hon’ble Court, acting on this petition, to the officers of the Government to remove encroachments of forest lands is highly unlikely to yield any concrete result unless the compliance with such directions is continuously monitored by this Hon’ble Court itself or by a Committee that this Court would convene for the purpose of such continuous monitoring.

9. It is also pertinent to note that, as on 11-Jun-2013, this very petition was receiving the due consideration of this Hon’ble Court and the fact of such consideration was also reported widely in the press and the media. Even otherwise, it is very unlikely that the Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Hon’ble Forest Minister or the several MLAs were unaware of the fact that the subject of encroachment of forest lands had engaged the serious attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Hon’ble Court, acting in public interest and in pursuance of several statutes that exist for the protection of forest lands.

10. Further, in the minutes of the co-ordination meeting held between the officers of the Forest Department on 12-Jun-2013, the impact from the illegal instruction given by the Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on the previous day was noted as under: (A copy of this document is produced herewith and marked as Annexure M3)

“After the briefing by PCCF (HoFF) officers expressed concern about safety of forest land in the State. CCF, Shimoga narrated an incidence of burning of two motor cycles of her staff, two JCB, while ripping encroachment land for eviction at Billigere in Kukkuvada Ubrani SF of Channagiri Range, Bhadravati Taluk, Bhadravati Division. Despite protests by encroachers, forest officials took possession of nearly 200 acres of aforesaid encroached forest land and ripped the area for planting during 2013 rains. CCF Shimoga also added that the encroachers, who were already evicted, started ploughing the area on very next day of meeting conducted by Hon’ble Forest Minister and are to take up agricultural operations such as tilling, sowing of seeds etc. This is a fallout of the meeting conducting by the Hon’ble Forest Minister on 11-06-2013. PCCF (Hoff) clarified that the matter would be referred to Government, but encroachment eviction process should not be halted.”

11. This Memo is being filed for the purpose of bringing to the notice of this Hon’ble Court, the real hurdles in the form of illegal interference and intervention by persons in position of power and influence whenever forest lands under illegal encroachment are sought to be cleared by well-intentioned officers in the Forest Department and the Government.

Bangalore



Date: 10-Feb-2014

Advocate for Petitioners

K.V.DHANANJAY

Date: 26-Feb-2014

To

The Hon’ble Minister for Primary and High School Education
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore – 560 001

Copy to:

Principal Secretary
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Multi-Storied Building
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

The Commissioner for Public Instruction
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Nrupatunga Road
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

Sub: Children cannot be admitted against the 25% Reservation under the ‘Right of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009’ in private unaided schools unless the Government cannot first find seats for them in Government Schools, schools run by local authorities or private aided schools.

For the forthcoming Academic Year, 2014-15, members of “Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association” will refuse to admit children under the 25% reservation unless they are individually assured that the said children could not be admitted in the neighbourhood Government schools, schools run by local authorities or private aided schools due to lack of seats therein.

Dear Sir
1. The official declaration of the Government of Karnataka is, in its own words:

“Nearly 4 out of every 5 elementary schools in the State are either run by the Government or supported by the Government;
Nearly 9 out of 10 lower primary schools are managed by the Government”

2. And, to desire that those who have earned a good name or reputation should suffer some misfortune and to take delight therein is known as ‘schadenfreude’ and Schopenhauer, the renowned philosopher had cautioned that,

“The worst trait in human nature…is schadenfreude”.

3. I write here on instruction from and for the benefit of:
Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association (‘KUSMA’ for short) is organized as a ‘Society’ whose members are comprised only of educational institutions in the State of Karnataka. This ‘Society’ is registered under the State law in force for the registration of ‘Societies’ and has been continually registered at all relevant times – S.No.438/83-84 dated 08-Mar-1984. Membership to this ‘Society’ is open only to those educational institutions which are privately organized and which do not receive aid or assistance of any kind from the Government, State or Central. Membership to KUSMA is strictly enforced and the current membership of KUSMA stands slightly above one thousand eight hundred educational institutions.

4. The enforcement of the ‘Right of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009’ (‘RTE’ or ‘RTE Act’ for short) in the State of Karnataka has fully exposed the lack of preparation on the part of officers of the State Government.

5. Section 12(1) of the RTE Act speaks of reservation in favour of children from socially and economically backward classes to the extent of 25% in private unaided schools. You may kindly recollect that most of the associations representing private unaided schools had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the various provisions of the RTE Act. KUSMA was the only major association that did not join such a challenge against RTE in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went on to hold that the RTE Act could not be enforced against unaided minority educational institutions. Therefore, non-minority private unaided educational institutions are fully subject to the provisions of the RTE. This much is not in dispute.

6. Now, the RTE Act merely says that there shall be a reservation in private unaided schools to the extent of 25% in favour of children from socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. And, the whole law of RTE is built on the concept of ‘neighbourhood’. That is to say, children from a given neighbourhood should, as far as practicable, receive education in their own neighbourhood and should not be compelled to travel to a different neighbourhood merely to receive elementary education (Std. I to VIII). Suppose, we have a neighbourhood, say a specially developed and built township for the affluent and wealthy in which there simply are very few children from the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. And, a couple of schools come to be established in this township. Obviously, there would be no compulsion upon such schools to shut down simply because they could not find many children to fill in the 25% reservation. In a situation like this, the RTE law would be interpreted to only mean an obligation to enrol available reservation children only. Similarly, say there is a district that has a good network of government schools and also a large number of private unaided schools. Say, the children who are eligible to be admitted under the 25% reservation in that district is 500 but the 25% quota seats in all private schools combined therein is say, 5000. In a situation such as this, most private unaided schools in that district may end up enrolling reservation children to an extent of below 25% of their strength. In fact, in the last academic year itself, hundreds of schools in the State of Karnataka individually witnessed enrolment of less than 10% under the RTE quota. If RTE law were interpreted to mean a compulsory enrolment of the full 25% reservation irrespective of availability of such children, thousands of schools across the country would have to shut down today. It is therefore, evident that any such interpretation would be wholly wrong.

7. Building from the above reasoning, KUSMA would demand that, for the academic year 2014-2015, the enrolment of reservation children to the extent of 25% in private unaided schools in the State be done in any given neighbourhood as under:

8. The RTE Act regulates four classes of educational institutions. They are:
i. Government schools,

ii. Schools that are run by the local authorities;

iii. Private Aided Schools and

iv. Private Unaided Schools

The data published by the Government of India in respect of the State of Karnataka would show that, there were 70851 elementary schools in the State. The break-up thereof is as under:

Class of Schools

Number of Schools

Percentage of Total

Government Schools

56305

79.47

Private Aided Schools

3160

4.46

Private Unaided Schools
11386

16.07

Total

70851

100.00



9. As may be seen from the above, out of every 100 schools in the State of Karnataka, 80 schools are Government schools and 4 schools are private aided schools. Therefore, private unaided schools in the State constitute a mere 16% of the overall number of schools. Further, the data published by the Central Government would also show that 87% of all elementary schools in the State are situated in rural areas. And, 89% of all rural elementary schools are Government schools. Nearly 76.36 lakh students were enrolled in elementary schools across the State.

10. The exact word of the Government of Karnataka on the above statistic is:
“Nearly 4 out of every 5 elementary schools in the State are either run by the Government or supported by the Government;
Nearly 9 out of 10 lower primary schools are managed by the Government”

11. Therefore, in order to subject the mere 16% private unaided schools in the State to 25% reservation under the RTE, KUSMA would demand that the enrolment of children proposed to be admitted in private unaided schools under the 25% reservation for the forthcoming academic year be staggered as under:

a) The Government schools in the neighbourhood should be the first and foremost choice for enrolment;

b) Schools run by the local authorities in the neighbourhood should rank next in order for the purpose of enrolment;

c) Private aided schools in the neighbourhood should rank next after a) and b) above and

d) Private unaided schools should be considered for enrolment only after there is a shortage despite enrolment in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools.

12. In other words, private unaided schools cannot be told to enrol children under the 25% reservation if seats in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools are all going empty due to the failure of the officers of the Education Department to first look to those three categories of schools.

13. You may kindly note that the RTE law is built on the concept of need for education and is not intended to create any preference in society for education in private unaided schools only. No part of the RTE Act says any such thing as ‘education in Government schools or schools run by local authorities is inferior to education in private unaided schools’. As such, it was never the intention of the RTE Act to sound the death knell of Government schools and schools run by local authorities.

14. You may note that almost all central taxes come with a 2% education cess and across India, Governments have spent thousands of crores of rupees on establishing schools for the poor and the needy and the State of Karnataka itself has spent hundreds of crores of rupees to establish and administer schools by itself and through local authorities. When such is the case, it would be opposed to ordinary common sense as well as fiscal prudence for the officers of the Department of Education to ignore seats in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools and to only turn towards private unaided schools.

15. Private unaided schools survive on their own through funds from parents. While it is true that a good number of private unaided schools is quite unscrupulous, a number of private unaided schools are run transparently, ethically and in obedience to the laws of the State.

16. The Parliament of India, speaking through the RTE, has not said that education in Government schools is inferior to education in private schools. When the Parliament intended to provide for reservation in private schools, the Parliament clearly knew that thousands of crores had already been spent on Government schools and still, children from the socially and economically backward class were not catered to by the available Government schools. It is in this context that the RTE law put in a reservation in private schools. So, the RTE cannot be implemented by the Government of Karnataka in a manner so as to dry the existing Government schools and schools run by local authorities. Moreover, the Government of Karnataka is incurring substantial expenditure towards salaries of teachers in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools. Such commitment to pay teachers would rather seem perverse if the officers of the Department of Education would act in such a way as to ensure migration of children from Government schools in favour of private unaided schools. After all, lakhs of teachers who must receive their monthly salaries in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools cannot be expected to teach to empty benches if the Department of Education would cultivate among parents of children from the socially and economically backward classes, a preference for private unaided schools only.

17. Data published by the Central Government would show that 2,28,681 teachers were in employment in Government elementary schools in Karnataka. For some mysterious reason, both the Central Government and the State Government seem to be reluctant to publish the item-wise monetary spending on education. The exact word of the Karnataka Government is that:

“Over 90% of the budget for school education in Karnataka is spent on salaries to Government primary and secondary school teachers and as grant-in-aid to aided institutions…”

18. However, assuming conservatively that the salary of a teacher in a Government school is not less than Rs.12000 per month and given that there are 2,28,681 teachers employed in Government elementary schools in the State, the payment by the Government of salaries of teachers in its own elementary schools is as under:

2,28,681 Government Teachers * Rs.12000 pm = Rs.274.40 Crores per month.

19. Annually, the Government teachers in elementary schools in the State would therefore receive, Rs.274.40 Crores * 12 months = Rs.3292.80 Crores. In perspective, this Rs.3292 Crores is far more than the combined annual global theatrical revenue of all the four southern film industries put together. In other words, the money spent by the Government of Karnataka on teachers’ salaries in Government schools in any year is far more than the total box-office receipts of every Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam film released in theatres across the world in a given year. Despite such a massive financial commitment by the State Government to pay its own teachers in Government schools, it is a mystery as to why the officers of the Department of Education are trying to dry Government schools. The teachers in Government schools are contractually entitled to receive their salaries irrespective of whether or not they have any work to do in Government schools. So, what kind of inexplicable logic has the Department of Education fallen prey to in now pushing children from Government schools to prefer private unaided schools?

20. A parent who is poor and cannot afford to pay the regular fees in a private unaided school cannot legally claim that education in Government schools or schools run by local authorities or private aided schools is not acceptable to him and that he would admit his child only under the 25% reservation in private unaided schools. If any person would read the RTE Act carefully, he will nowhere find any such right vested in a parent. Therefore, the Government would do well to simply ignore such ‘misguided vanity’ in any parent and should admit his child in the available Government school, school run by the local authority or private aided school. It is only if there is no physical availability in these three classes of schools could the Government enrol those children in a private unaided school and even then, not in a choice of the parent but in a randomly selected private unaided school in the neighbourhood. You may see from the RTE Act that admissions therein are to be made in a random manner and not through personal preference or selection.

21. Therefore, you are hereby informed that the members of KUSMA have been constrained to come to the decision to not admit children under the 25% reservation under the RTE for the forthcoming academic year unless they are individually assured that the children they are told to admit under the 25% reservation could not be accommodated in Government-run schools, schools run by local authorities or private aided schools in the neighbourhood.

22. Finally, it is quite evident that the officers of the Department of Education seem to take special delight in vexing reputed private unaided schools in the name of RTE. To desire that those who have earned a good name or reputation should suffer some misfortune and to take delight therein is known as ‘schadenfreude’ and Schopenhauer, the renowned philosopher had cautioned that,

“The worst trait in human nature…is schadenfreude”.

Sincerely

K.V.DHANANJAY

Advocate

The tv9 journos stinging the minister committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - their arrest was wholly wrongful

Bribery of public servants often happens behind closed doors. Corruption among public servants is a grave threat to the social, legal and moral fabric of our society. So, there is enormous public interest involved in facilitating the media to expose corrupt politicians. Therefore, the public is profoundly interested in a careful and balanced interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in so far as sting operations by the media are concerned. In the instant case, two journalists of a Kannada news channel have been arrested on the ground that they had sought to bribe a Minister in the Government of Karnataka. It is the stated case of both the sides that the journalists were only pretending to seek favours for a certain fictitious company that was not even in existence or in the reckoning for Government favours. In the background of this factual context, I, K.V.Dhananjay, an advocate in practice at the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also at this Hon’ble Court would respectfully submit the following propositions of law, with the due leave of this Hon’ble Court, that:

I do not have any connection or relationship, monetary or otherwise, with the complainant-minister or with the television channel. I do not personally benefit and I would not be personally deprived in the event of any outcome in this case.

When a tv reporter would offer a bribe to a minister with an express indication that the minister should, in consideration for the bribe, favour a certain company which the tv reporter knows to be fictitious and not even in existence except on paper, the tv reporter has committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On examination of the foundational principles of criminal law and of criminal jurisprudence, it is evident that a person cannot be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that he had offered a bribe to a public servant if only the transaction sought to be corrupted had no real existence at all. Therefore, the very arrest of the two journalists was wrongful. They are therefore, entitled to bail as a matter of right in view of the fact that their very arrest was wrongful in the first place.

To illustrate, say there is a 75 year old man. He was never married and never had any children. He would proceed to a police station and would hand over a bunch of notes totalling Rs.1 lakh to the sub-inspector and he would plead with the sub-inspector: “My son has committed a very heinous crime. Please do not arrest him. Here is your money to not arrest him”. Has this man committed an offence of ‘bribery’ for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? Not at all. That man was never married, never had any children and there was no person that he knew who had committed any heinous offence and so, nobody who was liable to be arrested and therefore, there simply was nobody to be corruptly shielded from arrest. So, all that could be said of this old man’s act is that he did commit a ‘mischief’. And if there is any statute that expressly makes any mischief directed at a public servant, a punishable offence, the old man in this illustration could be charged thereunder and prosecuted for it. I am not aware of any such statute, however.

As such, resort to various judgments of the High Courts or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not even be warranted when it is first seen that the act in question cannot even be qualified as ‘an act of bribe giving’. Several judgments that have appreciated acts of ‘sting operation’ by the media and have thereby quashed the criminal prosecution against the journalists might become relevant only when the the act in question would technically qualify as a ‘offence’ for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That is, I humbly submit that I understand the several judgments that have applauded ‘sting operations’ as applying only to those circumstances when, technically, an offence was indeed committed by the journalist under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but that the public interest that had motivated such a ‘sting operation’ would justify the Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the journalist-accused.

In the illustration given earlier, it would be irrelevant to ask whether that old man was a journalist or not in order to say that he never did commit any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 though what he did pay would readily become a ‘bribe’ in the hands of that sub-inspector. It would also be unnecessary to even take into account, the fact of whether the journalists in the case before this Court had a laudable motive or not or even whether, the law should treat journalists differently from common folks. So, on the facts of this very case, the two journalists who went on to sting the minister simply committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Again, the fact that they were journalists is simply immaterial and the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence alone are the guiding factor to hold that they did not commit any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Further, it may become necessary to address the concern here that in the illustration given above, the old man should be let off scot-free whereas the sub-inspector should be jailed although it could be forcefully argued for the sub-inspector that the same consideration that there was nobody to corruptly shield should also equally apply to the sub-inspector and he too should be held to have committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To address this argument, I would respectfully submit, by resorting to foundational principles of our criminal jurisprudence that:
a) The culpability of a bribe taker has very little to do with whether or not there is a corresponding charge that has been brought against the bribe-giver. So, the act of bribe-taking primarily begins with a state of mind in the bribe-taker that he has a certain power to exercise as a public servant which he has shown a willingness to corrupt by the act of bribe-taking. Again, the test is ‘not whether there is an occasion for the power to be abused’. The test is merely whether ‘the public servant possessed a certain power that is open to abuse by it’s very nature – not whether, in the specific facts of the case, the power was liable to be abused’. So, a person who has just been designated as a ‘public servant’ of a certain rank and who hasn’t even been assigned any specific task yet would still run the risk of being charged with ‘bribe-taking’ should be accept money from any person who expects that this public servant would come to hold a certain portfolio though the public servant himself would hold no such certainty. As such, it is the mere receipt of bribe that is of relevance to charge a ‘bribe-taker’ and not whether the bribe was taken to abuse his office under any specific circumstance or condition or even whether, the act to be corrupted was even capable of performance or execution. Therefore, given this state of the established law in relation to a ‘bribe-taker’, the sub-inspector in the aforesaid illustration could be readily charged for the offence of ‘bribe-taking’ though the giver, the old man, would be let off for his act of mischief which would not constitute an act of ‘bribe-giving’.



b) To finally amplify the aforesaid a), we may consider another illustration. A politician who has a devout and massive following is charged with rioting or some such offence and arrested on that charge. Investigation ensues and the politician applies for bail. Unknown to others, just before the crucial bail hearing, the public-prosecutor in this case would receive en envelope that is stashed with currency notes totaling Rs.10000. The prosecutor is of course, a ‘public servant’ for the purpose of the ‘Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’. Nobody knows who sent this envelope. The prosecutor tells nobody of this fact – of the envelope. He simply takes that money into his custody for his own use, without informing any person of it. He goes on to argue and his superiors come to entertain a feeling that he did not do well in Court. Eventually, the judge would reject the arguments of the prosecutor and would grant bail to that politician. The superiors of the prosecutor would later come to know of the envelope and that the prosecutor had come to receive Rs.10000 through that envelope. The superiors then charge the prosecutor of having receive a ‘bribe’ to show favour to that politician by not arguing well in the Court. In this very charge, there are two aspects – first, that the prosecutor did knowingly and clandestinely receive a bribe and secondly, in exchange for that bribe, he went on to deliberately ruin the case of the prosecution. The prosecution would be under no duty to identify the person who had sent the envelope or to even prove that the prosecutor had any special communication or instruction from the person who had sent the envelope. It is further, not necessary, for the prosecution to succeed on the first aspect of bribe-taking that the public-prosecutor had in fact, deliberately not argued efficiently. The offence of ‘bribe-taking’ is complete at the point of receipt of the bribe. At this juncture, let us say that the person who had indeed sent the envelope would come forward to say that “he was in no way related to that politician and that he in fact, had believed that the politician in question was a menace to the society and that, moved by the plight of the poor circumstances under which the public prosecutors work, he had sent in that money to the public prosecutor with a view to helping him to spend, if necessary on books or judgments and to argue the bail hearing effectively. However, he had left no instruction whatsoever on how the money was to be spent”. Let’s also assume that this person could prove his act of sending and his sentiment and motive to a legal certainty. Is this motive of the person who sent in the envelope relevant at all to the trial of the public prosecutor who has been charged with having received a ‘bribe’? The answer would strictly be in the negative. The motive of the person who did send in that envelope containing the money is relevant, if only, he himself is charged during the trial. Otherwise, the act of payment of money and the act of receiving that money as a ‘bribe’ are often, conceptually, two separate transactions in the eyes of law and are to be separately analysed and examined.

K.V.DHANANJAY, Advocate

Increasing instances of suicides and attempt to suicide by school-going children is sought to be addressed by Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association by constituting a study group.

Date: 22-Mar-2014

To

The Hon’ble Minister for Primary and High School Education
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore – 560 001

Copy to:

Principal Secretary
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Multi-Storied Building
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

The Commissioner for Public Instruction
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Nrupatunga Road
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

Sub: Increasing instances of suicides and attempt to suicide by school-going children is sought to be addressed by Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association by constituting a study group. This study group would very much need copies of investigation reports accumulated by the Department of Education in respect of suicides of school-going children – for the past five years

Dear Sir
1. I write here on instruction from and for the benefit of Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association (‘KUSMA’, for short), an association that represents the interests of more than 1800 private unaided schools in the State of Karnataka.

2. Instances of school-going children committing suicide is very much on the rise across the State of Karnataka and schools in the State are truly concerned about this worrisome trend.

3. Teachers in schools that are members of KUSMA have begun to openly express concern about news reports of children committing suicide after mild criticism or disapproval by their teachers. Thereby, a large body of teachers in private schools is considerably worried at not being able to anticipate the unintended consequences of even ordinary verbal disciplining of children. With the law in India on legal liability for suicide of another person remaining very uncertain, teachers and managements of private schools are greatly worried about not being able to navigate the challenges brought about by increasing suicides of school-going children. Therefore, KUSMA has resolved to constitute a study group comprising of competent professionals to devise practical guidelines for use by its members on ‘how to spot vulnerabilities in school-children and to manage such vulnerabilities in a careful manner’. For this task, KUSMA would require from the Department of Education, copies of investigation reports that the Department has collated on the subject of suicides of school-going children in the past five years.

4. The Department of Education has a real interest in addressing the suicide of any school-going child if only such suicide is related to any incident or conduct committed while that child was in school. Accordingly, the Department of Education invariably orders investigation in all such cases even when the criminal justice system and the police do not get involved. However, where the police are involved in a case of suicide of a school-going child, the Department of Education would still obtain administrative reports for its record. KUSMA would require copies of all such investigative reports that have been accumulated by the Department of Education for the purpose of enabling KUSMA’s own study-group to devise practical guidelines as aforesaid.

5. Standard textbooks or theories on child psychology are no substitute whatsoever to investigation reports in the custody of the Department of Education on real cases of suicides of school-going children in the State – when one sets out to learn about possible causes of such suicides. Such investigative reports would help KUSMA’s study group in a detailed understanding of what might have led to the actual suicides of school-going children and it is only such practical knowledge that could be of any use to the study group to guide teachers in private schools to spot vulnerabilities in young children.

6. Further, the investigation reports in the custody of the Department of Education are not, in any real sense, confidential or private and the Department may, if it chooses, redact or black-out any identifying information while providing KUSMA with copies of such investigation reports. KUSMA would ensure that its study group would leave out identifying information it has learnt from investigative reports provided by the Government while circulating its practical guidelines.

7. KUSMA would like to state that a significant section of teachers in member schools are of the informed and careful opinion that an increasing number of school-going children are becoming afflicted with depression and mental disorders without anybody in school or home noticing it in time. When mental disorders in young children go undiagnosed at home or school, the possibility of such children receiving much needed medical care or therapy would be drastically cut down. Suicidal behaviour or tendencies in a few school-going children may fully remain hidden to teachers unless teachers are provided with helpful guidelines on ‘how to spot such vulnerabilities’. Therefore, KUSMA has devised this study group and any publication by this study group would remain practically useless unless this study group receives the benefit of investigative reports that are in the custody of the Department of Education.

8. Further, in view of the fact that police investigation and criminal trials in Karnataka are not yet digitized, indexed or searchable electronically, one would be without any clue on obtaining police reports on cases of suicide of school-going children in the State. The Department of Education is the only recourse to KUSMA at this time.

9. Finally, KUSMA awaits copies of investigation reports that are in the custody of the Department of Education on the subject of suicides of school-going children in respect of the past five years. Further, in view of the fact that the members of KUSMA are spread out across the State of Karnataka, KUSMA would request the Department to not limit the information that it would provide to merely cases of suicides from urban areas or towns.

10. KUSMA would be immensely grateful to the Department for its timely release of information sought herein.

Sincerely


K.V.DHANANJAY

Advocate

Student Suicide Data - No data, No data, No data, SLAM THE GOVERNMENT, Yes, We have the data

AT FIRST, THEY DENY
Indian Express - 23-Mar
Mohammad Mohsin, Commissioner of the Department has however said that KUSMA will have to approach the police department as the Primary and secondary Education Department has no data with regard to this.

The Hindu - 23-Mar
However, Mohammad Mohsin, Commissioner of Public Instruction, said the department did not have data on investigations on the issue and said that the association would have to approach the Police Department to obtain records.

The Times of India - 24-Mar
'No letter has come' No one from Kusma has approached me, nor have they written a letter. How can they make such allegations? We don't compile such data. If something happens in midday meals, then we compile such data. Mohammed Mohsin / commissioner for public instructions

THEN, KUSMA SLAMS THE GOVERNMENT
The Times of India - 24-Mar
Kusma, the association of unaided private schools, has made allegations of apathy and callousness against the commissioner, education department, after the association was "denied" information on the number of student suicides. It urged the department to act responsibly.

Pointing out that the association had high expectations of the department, the mail said, "We are not sure why they were in such a hurry to turn us away."

"It would not be far-fetched for Kusma to want the education minister and home minister to come together to spare a few minutes to share information on worrisome child suicide rates in the state. After all, everybody knows that the cabinet that comprises far more ministers would come together to act with lightning speed whenever there is a dubious contract to be awarded to benefit some private person."

KUSMA TOOK THE RIGID STAND THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DOES HAVE THE DATA THAT KUSMA WANTS
The Times of India - 24-Mar
Claiming that it is aware of procedures where block-level officers (BEOs) collect information from police,

"When police probe such cases, the BEOs update their internal reports with material gathered by the cops,"

EXPECTEDLY, THE DEPARTMENT CAME TO TERMS AND FINALLY TURNED AROUND AND SAID, "OH YES! WE DO HAVE THE DATA"
Deccan Herald - 25-Mar
K Anand, Director, Primary Education, Department of Public Instruction, said that investigations into cases of suicides were usually conducted by the police department, although the block education offices concerned also do compile preliminary reports.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. of 2014

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 15511-14 OF 2013 [GM - RES] PIL

Between:

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya And Ors
Petitioners
And

Union of India And Ors.

Respondents

Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioners in terms of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read With Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or other independent police agency into the episode of gross, deliberate and illegal regularisation of encroachment of Government lands within the Bangalore Urban District – by the several officers of the Government of Karnataka and other public servants in mutual connivance and conspiracy with private persons so as to cause a loss of at least Rs.20000 Crores (Rupees Twenty Thousand Crores) to the State exchequer.

1. The facts stated, grounds urged and the relief sought for in the accompanying Writ Petition may kindly be treated as forming an integral part of this interlocutory application.

2. In prayer c) at page 66 of the Writ Petition, these Petitioners had sought the criminal prosecution of public servants who had conspired or connived with private persons to deliberately and illegally benefit such private persons by gifting to them, the very Government lands that such private persons had wantonly encroached upon – in a manner that was wholly opposed to the express statutory provisions of law. In furtherance of the said prayer, the Petitioners herein seek a direction by this Hon’ble Court to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to another independent police agency to investigate into the documented episodes of illegal and corrupt regularisation of encroachment of Government lands within a radius of 18 Kilometres (‘KM’s for short, hereinafter) from the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’, for short). The statutory laws that were in force at the time of such regularisation had clearly forbidden regularisation of encroachment of Government lands situated within a distance of 18 KMs from BBMP limits.

3. It is common knowledge that if a person would knowingly encroach upon a Government land and would squat there, the numerous statutes in force in the State of Karnataka would have compelled the State Government to immediately and forcefully evict such person from its property. However, under certain circumstances where the encroacher happened to be a landless labourer or suffered from abject poverty, a section of the lawmakers was inclined to think that public policy would justify the act of encroachment subject only to the fact that the land in question did not command a significant value and the extent of encroachment was small and marginal. After all, if the land under encroachment would command a significant value in the market, the Government could never let any person encroach upon the same on the pretext of poverty or misery. Therefore, with a view to ensure that certain encroachments by poor peasants and landless labourers without the means or resources to possess any land for their subsistence or cultivation were suitably regularised if only the size of the encroachment was very small and the land in question did not command any significant market value, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was suitably amended so as to pardon encroachment of Government lands subject to strict humanitarian considerations. Progressively, numerous rules and directions were introduced for the purpose of ensuring that persons with means or resources do not receive the benefit of such Government pardon. Most importantly, instead of assessing in each individual case, the value of the encroached Government land in question, the law was set forth in such a way that urban lands that would generally command a significant value would be altogether prohibited from regularisation. Definite prohibitions were imposed in this regard. After all, a landless labourer who would squat on a valuable piece of Government land cannot, on any legal or moral ground, be rewarded with such land to himself as by doing so, the Government would have encouraged grave criminal behaviour by inviting more deviant elements of the society to similarly squat on valuable Government lands, seek regularisation and then, sell such land for a sum that could even range into crores of rupees – a prospect that would invite anarchy and utter lawlessness in the society.

4. To start with, it would be necessary to look to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 that address encroachment of public lands. Section 94 of the Act is the principal provision that deals with encroachment of public lands by private persons. It says:

Section 94 - Penalties for unauthorised occupation of land

(1) Any person who shall unauthorisedly enter upon the occupation of any land set apart for any special purpose or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated and any person, who uses or occupies any such land to the use or occupation of which he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled, shall pay twice such amount of assessment for every year of his unauthorised occupation, as would be leviable in the same village on the same extent of similar land used for the same purpose; and shall also be liable, at the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner, for every year of his unauthorised occupation, to a fine not exceeding five hundred rupees per acre, if such occupation has been for the purposes of cultivation, and not exceeding one thousand rupees per acre, if such occupation has been for any non-agricultural purpose.

(2) the Deputy Commissioner, in determining the amount of assessment and the fine under sub-section (1), shall count occupation for a portion of a year as whole year.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 3 of 1962), the person unauthorisedly occupying any such land shall also be summarily evicted by the Deputy Commissioner and any crop including trees, raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture, and any building or other construction erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Deputy Commissioner may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture or to summary removal.

(4) Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Deputy Commissioner and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of, as the Deputy Commissioner may direct and the cost of the removal of any encroachment under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.

5. That is, Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 lays down the penalties and consequences for illegal occupation of public lands. While sub-section (1) thereto deals with the power and obligation upon the officers of the Government to impose a fine or penalty for past illegal occupation of the public land, sub-section (3) authorises the Government and thereby mandates that the person in illegal occupation “shall be summarily evicted” from the public land concerned. This provision overrides the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1961. Further, any building or other structure erected by the illegal occupant upon the public land is liable to be removed, in the first instance by the person in illegal occupation himself and upon his failure to do so despite a direction by the Government, then, by the Government.

6. As such, it is very much evident from a plain reading of Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 that no manner of discretion is vested in the Government to not evict an illegal occupant of public lands upon it reaching a satisfaction that a certain person has illegally occupied a given public land. As such, any other provision in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 that would authorise the Government to pardon an illegal occupant is bound to receive a strict construction and the language therein cannot be stretched to favour the encroacher unless there exists a sound basis for such relaxation in the provision itself.

7. Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (referred to hereinafter also as ‘KLR’, for short) provides for regularisation of encroachment of public lands by destitute persons under very strict circumstances. It says:

94A. Regularisation of certain cases of unauthorised occupation by constituting committee etc.


(1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the State Government shall, by notification, constitute for each taluk a committee consisting of such number of members not exceeding five of whom one shall be a member of Legislative Assembly for the purpose of grant of land under sub-section (4).

(2) The Tahsildar of the concerned taluk shall be the Secretary of the committee.

(2A) The State Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary, constitute one or more additional committees for a taluk for the purpose of grant of land under sub-section (4) consisting of such number not exceeding five, as may be prescribed and the State Government shall nominate from among the members one of them as the Chairman and another as the Secretary of the committee. When an additional committee is constituted, the Deputy Commissioner shall determine the jurisdictions of the committee and the additional committee and transfer the pending applications to the respective committee.

(3) The committee or additional committee shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.

(4) Nothing in section 94 shall prevent the committee constituted under sub-section (1), or additional committee constituted under sub-section (2A), but subject to such rules as may be prescribed, if any, to grant to the person liable to be evicted under that section, the land which he had unauthorisedly occupied prior to the fourteenth day of April, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the said date) or any portion thereof, if he satisfies the prescribed conditions (including the extent of the land held and unauthorisedly occupied by him) and makes within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act. 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act), an application for such grant in such form along with such fees as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount payable under sub-section (5):

Provided that the land so granted together with the land already held by such person, shall not exceed two hectares of 'D' class of land or its equivalent thereto:

Provided further that no land shall be granted in the areas lying within the limits of Cities and City Municipalities specified in column (2) of the Table below and within the distance from such limits specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof:

TABLE

(1)

(2)

(3)

1

Bangalore City under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976

18 Kms.

2

The Cities of Belgaum, Gulbarga, Hubli-Dharwad, Mangalore and Mysore respectively under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976

10 Kms

3

All city Municipalities having more than fifty thousand population and constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964

5 Kms.

Provided also that a person who has unauthorisedly occupied the land, falling within the distance of five kilometres from the limits of the city municipality having less than fifty thousand population, prior to the 14th day of April, 1990, shall make an application for such grant, within three months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1994.]

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to Forest lands, plantation lands or lands referred to in sub-section (2) of section 79.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, 'D' class of land means 'D' class of land or an extent equivalent thereto consisting of one or more classes of land, as specified and determined in accordance with the formula in Schedule I to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

(5) The amount payable for the grant of land under sub-section (1), sub-section (2A) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-section,--

(a) The Tahsildar concerned shall issue the order of grant of land, on the recommendations of the committee or additional committee, as the case may be, if any, and issue the saguvali chit. The amount payable, if any, shall be paid in three equal instalments of which the first one shall be paid before the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order of grant and the remaining two within such period as may be prescribed; and

(b) x x x]

(c) the trees, if any, standing on the land granted and the granite in such land shall continue to belong to the Government, which may at its discretion be disposed off by it, in such manner as it may deem fit.

8. Upon a perusal of Section 94A of the KLR, the following aspects become evident:

i. Subject to the condition that the public land under encroachment is not situated within the specified distance from certain Municipal Corporations or Municipalities, each Taluk in the State of Karnataka is to have a committee that would look into requests by persons who have encroached upon Government lands;

ii. Each such committee is to have not more than five members and one of these five members is to be a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’, for short); in other words, the MLA, mostly of the locality concerned, is to act as a member of this committee;

iii. Subject to consideration of several aspects such as the extent of holding held by the applying encroacher as well as the extent of holding held by or regularised in respect of other family members of the applying encroacher, the committee would recommend the regularisation in favour of the applying encroacher;

iv. Consequent to the aforesaid recommendation, if any, the Government would regularise the encroachment by the destitute applicant.

9. As such, the central requirement of any regularisation under Section 94-A of the KLR is that the encroachment in question should not have been on lands that are situated within the specified distance from certain Municipal Corporations and Municipalities. Obviously, the Legislature was fully alive to the fact that lands that are situated within or closer to cities and towns in Karnataka were far too valuable to be given away as a measure of subsistence to destitute persons or landless labourers. As such, the regularisation of encroachment of public lands in terms of Section 94-A of the KLR could have only been effected in respect of lands that were not situated within the specified distance from the stated Municipal Corporations and Municipalities. The entry number (1) in the table to sub-section (4) of Section 94-A of the KLR states that lands situated within a distance of 18 KMs from the limits of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation (which has since been renamed as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) were prohibited for any regularisation under Section 94-A. This prohibition is complete and absolute. No exemption or relaxation is permissible howsoever in respect of this prohibition. Lamentably, organised criminals and land-grabbing mafia had always taken extraordinary interest in lands situated within the BBMP and around the BBMP in view of the spiralling land prices in these territories. In fact, the land prices within and around the BBMP are amongst the highest in India and are also amongst the highest in Asia.

10. It has since been discovered that for the sole purpose of illegally and criminally benefitting such criminal gangs, several public servants had connived and conspired with many private persons for the purpose of knowingly, intentionally, deliberately and illegally regularising the encroachment of Government lands situated within a distance of 18 KMs from the BBMP. In other words, various public servants including certain legislators had connived or conspired with the Deputy Commissioner for the Bangalore Urban District and the Tahsildars for the five Taluks comprised in the Bangalore Urban District for the purpose of facilitating organised criminals, land mafia, builders and other private persons to retain their encroachment of public lands. Such public servants had corruptly reconveyed the prohibited public lands to the encroachers themselves with full knowledge of the fact that there was an absolute prohibition under Section 94-A of the KLR against such regularisation. A whopping 5245 acres of highly valuable public lands situated within 18 KMs of the BBMP and which were encroached upon by organised criminals, land mafia, politicians or public servants, among others, have been most wantonly, blatantly and illegally reconveyed to those very encroachers by several public servants acting in connivance and conspiracy with such private persons. A very conservative estimate of the value of such public lands that have been illegally and corruptly handed over to private interests would exceed Rs.20000 Crores (Rupees Twenty Thousand Crores). It is humbly submitted that such rampant lawlessness and corruption is unlikely to have occurred in any other State of India at any point of time.

11. It is further submitted that the Report of the Government Task Force For Recovery Of Public Land And Its Protection (at pg 43 to 46) also cites this very episode of corruption in the following manner:

FLOUTING OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND REVENUE ACT IN REGULARIZING UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF LANDS

8. The Land Revenue Act was amended on 20-3-1991 to prohibit regularization of unauthorized cultivation of lands within 18 kilometres of Bangalore Municipal Corporation limits, 10 kms from the limits of the Corporations of Hubli-Dharwad, Mysore, Belgaum, Mangalore and Gulbarga and 5 kilometres of every City Municipalities in the State. With effect from 6-7-1994 the 5 km limit was extended to all towns with a population of more than 50,000. The prohibition of such regularization within any municipal body’s limit and also within 3 kilometres from the limits of Town Municipal Councils was already in existence under Rule 10(iv) of the Land Grant Rules. According to the provisions of the amendment, the applications for such regularization should be given by the unauthorized cultivator in Form 50 (till 19-9-1991) and in Form 53 (till 30-4-1999) to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar is the ex-officio Secretary of the Regularization Committee of which either the jurisdictional Member of the Legislative Assembly or his nominee is the Chairperson and there are three other non-officials nominated to the Committee. If the recommendation of the Committee is not in accordance with law, the Tahsildar-Secretary has to report the matter to the Assistant Commissioner who can reverse the decision of the Committee.

9. The receipt of the applications should be entered chronologically in the Register and after the last date for the applications was over, the Register should be closed with the signature, date and seal of the Tahsildar (R.108C). This is to ensure that no applications are entertained after the last due date. The Tahsildar should then check the application with reference to its legal validity and if satisfied should send it to the Deputy Commissioner.(R108cc(2). The Deputy Commissioner should then inspect the land and satisfy himself that there is a genuine case for regularization. This is mandatory. He then has to send it back to the Tahsildar who then puts it up to the Committee. The Committee should deliberate the application and may either recommend for the regularization or for its rejection. If recommended, the Tahsildar issues the Saguvali Chit after collecting the upset price. (108) cc(3) and d(3). Only after this procedure is completed the regularization process is valid or complete.

HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED BY THE TASK FORCE THAT IN NO CASE THIS LEGAL PROCEDURE HAS BEEN ADHERED TO EITHER BY THE TAHSILDAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMITTEE.

All the applications received in Form 50 or Form 53 are routinely and mechanically put up before the Committee by the Tahsildars without examining the legality and without sending them to the Deputy Commissioner. Even where the lands are situated within 18 kilometres limit of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation such applications are routinely put up before the Committee by the Tahsildars and in many cases have been regularized also.

The Task Force made a detailed examination of such illegal regularizations in the Bangalore Urban District where almost all of the villages come within the 18 kilometre limit of BMP/BBMP. The very objective of such prohibition of regularization within 18 km limit was due to the high value of land in and around Bangalore and to prevent the misuse of land which are mostly not under cultivation at all and in many cases already made into illegal layouts.

The following is the position in Bangalore Urban District where such illegal regularization has already been done and are also “pending” before the Committees. Such “pendency” is also inoperative since the Committees can never regularize such lands due to the prohibition by law.

Taluk

Applns Recd

Acres

Regularised

Pending

No.

Acres.

No.

Acres

No.

Acres

B’lore East

2941

4864

141

232

157

228

B’lore North

4748

8732

53

65

274

536

B’lore North Addl

8121

14450

1173

1273

762

2137

B’lore South

13760

19949

1844

2112

1021

1474

Anekal

13606

24586

2063

2153

4434

10177

Total

43176

72581

5274

5835

6648

14551

11. As can be seen from the above statement, 5,835 acres have been regularized which are almost all illegal. There is not a single village coming outside the 18 km limit of Bangalore City Corporation in Bangalore South taluk and yet 2,112 acres have been regularized. Similarly in Anekal taluk, barring a few villages all the rest come within the 18 km limit and yet nearly 2,000 acres have been regularized which is illegal. None of these lands are under cultivation. As to the pending applications, the Regularization Committees are keeping them pending in spite of knowing that these villages come within the 18 km limit and therefore the lands cannot be regularized.

12. The value of these 20,000 acres lands not eligible for regularization is not less than Rs.20,000 crores. The Task Force has asked the Tahsildars to return the ineligible applications to be returned to the applicants in “pending cases” and has asked the Assistant Commissioners to cancel the grants made illegally in cases within the 18 km limit.

12. Further, the report of the Task Force clearly points to a total disregard by the Government officers of the several rules that were created for the purpose of ensuring that even where the encroached land is eligible for regularisation, the persons applying for regularisation were carefully scrutinised and that all such applications were made within the stipulated time. It is to be noted that the BBMP is not the only territory for the purpose of Section 94-A and numerous other Municipal Corporations and Municipalities and even towns too have been specified for the purpose of excluding lands that are situated close to such territories. The blatant disregard of the various rules and safeguards with respect to public lands situated within 18 KMs from the BBMP may very well be expected to have also been similarly repeated with respect to regularisation of lands that are in proximity to other Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and towns in the State of Karnataka.

13. The Petitioners further submit that they have secured certain documents that go to establish, in connection with the aforesaid development, a very disturbing case of corruption on the part of a certain legislator from Bangalore to reward his friends and political followers by simply allowing such private persons who had already encroached upon public lands within 18 KMs from BBMP to permanently retain such lands by regularising those public lands in favour of those very friends and political followers although the prohibition in sub-section (4) of Section 94-A of the KLR was simply absolute and such friends or political followers were altogether ineligible to even ask for such regularisation even if the lands were situated within 18 KMs of the BBMP.

14. The documents annexed to this application concern one Mr. R.Ashok, who was a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly in the previous Vidhana Sabha and who is also a member of the current Vidhana Sabha. He was last elected from the Padmanabhanagar constituency in Bangalore. Further, Mr. R.Ashok was also the deputy Chief Minister during the later term of the previous Vidhana Sabha besides being the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Home Affairs during the previous term of the Vidhana Sabha. It is also seen that one Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, the person who came to hold the position of the Mayor of the City of Bangalore in the year 2012 during Mr.R.Ashok’s tenure as aforesaid is a very close associate of the said Mr. R.Ashok. It is further seen that Mr. R.Ashok was appointed as the Legislative Member of a five-member committee that was to examine deserving cases of regularisation in terms of Section 94-A of the KLR. The documents annexed to this application would reveal the shocking state of lawlessness and corruption engaged in by Mr. R.Ashok in connivance and conspiracy with Mr. Venkatesh Murthy so as to secure to Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and his family, valuable Government lands through fraudulent misrepresentation to the Government.

15. The annexed documents show that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and his family had already encroached upon highly valuable Government lands measuring 8 acres in Sy.No.242 of Somanahalli Village, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk, an area that was barely 12 KMs from the limits of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation. By entering into a criminal conspiracy with Mr. R.Ashok, the said Mr. Venkatesh Murthy would deliberately, falsely and intentionally claim to the Government that they were landless labourers and destitutes who should receive the 8 acres of public lands that they had already encroached upon. At that time, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and his family were neither landless labourers nor persons without means or resources as he was already, an elected member of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. He and his family were possessed of substantial financial resources at the relevant time and thereafter, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy rose to the position of the Mayor of the City of Bangalore.

16. The Petitioners have verified that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was elected as a member of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in 1996 (the BBMP was then known as the Bangalore Municipal Corporation), 2001 and 2009. He is seen to have remained very loyal to Mr. R.Ashok and on 26-Apr-2012, he was elected as the Mayor of the City of Bangalore.

17. To explain the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the Petitioners would first invite the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the applicable rules.

18. For the purpose of implementing the various provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Government of Karnataka had framed rules under the authority of Section 197 of the KLR and these rules were notified on 26-Feb-1966 as the ‘Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966’ and have since been amended and modified from time to time.

19. Chapter XIII-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 comprises the ‘Rules’ that govern the aspect of ‘regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land’. In terms of Rule 108-B, clause (aa), a ‘committee’ for the purpose of this chapter is the ‘committee constituted under Section 94-A. Rule 108-E speaks of constitution of the ‘committee’. This Rule provides that ‘the committee shall consist of the member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly representing the major part of the Taluk’. Further, the Rules very clearly state that there would be no compulsion upon any member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly to chair such a committee. A member of the Legislative Assembly is free to reject any invitation to chair such a committee. The provision to Rule 108-E very clearly states that:

“Provided further that where the member representing major part of the Taluk is not available or is not willing to be a member of the committee, for any reason, the State Government may nominate any other Member of the Legislative Assembly as a member of the Committee”.

20. The Petitioners have verified that Mr. R.Ashok who was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Uttarahalli constituency in 1997 was appointed to the ‘Committee’ that was entrusted with the task of regularising illegal encroachments in areas comprised in his constituency. The Petitioners have further verified that Mr. R.Ashok was continuing as the chairman of the said committee in the year 2005 in respect of illegal encroachments in areas situated in his constituency.

21. The Petitioners have obtained a copy of the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka granting the application by Mr. Venkatesh Murthy seeking regularisation of his encroachment (together with his wife) on 8 acres of Government land in Sy.No.242 of Somanahalli village, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. A copy of the said document is produced herewith as Annexure A. English translation of the same is produced herewith as Annexure A1.

22. A perusal of the aforesaid document dated 21-Jan-2005 would clearly show that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy had illegally encroached upon 4 acres of Government land in Sy.No.242 of Somanahalli village, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk and his wife, Smt.Prahbha too is shown in the record as having illegally encroached upon another 4 acres of Government land in the same Sy.No.242 of Somanahalli village. Pursuant to such encroachment, both the husband and wife are seen to have applied for regularisation. Finally, the Committee chaired by Mr. R.Ashok is seen to have decided to regularise the illegal encroachment of both Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and of his wife to the combined extent of 8 acres of Sy.No.242 of Somanahalli village, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk.

23. However, the corruption involved in the aforesaid regularisation was highlighted by the media in the year 2012 and it was only after much outrage by the public and the media did the Government of Karnataka proceed on 08-Jun-2012 to cancel the regularisation that was made on 24-Jan-2005 in respect of the illegal encroachment of 8 acres of Government land by Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and his wife, Smt.Prabha.

24. The following corrupt acts are evident from a reading of the document marked as Annexure A to this application:

Deliberation in the Proceeding of the Government of Karnataka would say:
(a)

The illegality in (a)

The Revenue Inspector, Nelaguli Circle Hobli states that the Somanahalli village is situated at a distance of more than 18 KMs from the Nagara Sabha limits.

The Somanahalli village was barely situated at a distance of 12 KMs from the limits of the BBMP. This is an objective fact that must have been very much within the knowledge of the Tahsildar as well as of Mr. R.Ashok.

The Report of Revenue Inspector, Nelaguli Circle on “whether any Bagar Hukkum Saguvali is being carried out by the said applicants” is to the effect that “the applicants have been carrying out Bagar Hukkum Saguvali in the Government Gomal Sy.No.242 of the Village for several years.”

Mr. R.Ashok who was the Chairman of the Regularisation Committee and who had established very close links with Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was bound to know that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was not an agriculturist at all as he had been, at the relevant time, a corporator (member of the BBMP).

Just to illegally benefit Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, Mr. R.Ashok, the Tahsildar concerned, the Revenue Inspector and other public servants appear to have criminally conspired to wantonly overlook that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was wholly ineligible to claim that he was an ‘agriculturist’ even by taking the ordinary meaning of that term. The fact that the Revenue Inspector has stated on record that his personal inspection confirms that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy (who had been a corporator for the nearby locality) was personally cultivating as an agriculturist does indicate a very disturbing state of connivance and criminal conspiracy.

25. The Petitioners would submit that, although the regularisation of the illegal encroachment of Government lands by Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and his wife was eventually cancelled by the Government of Karnataka several years later only owing to public pressure, the corruption evidently engaged in by Mr. R.Ashok at the relevant time was never addressed by the Government of Karnataka presumably because he was the Deputy Chief Minister of the Government during the term of the previous Vidhana Sabha. Further, in view of the allegation that Mr. R.Ashok is said to have similarly conferred his friends and devout followers with valuable Government lands in his own constituency by abusing his position as the Chairman of the ‘Regularisation Committee’, the criminality apparent in the regularisation of the lands in favour of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy deserves to be noted in greater detail.

26. Rule 108-F titled as ‘Eligibility for Grant’ provides that, “no person shall be eligible for grant of land under this chapter, unless-”

“Clause (iv) – he is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally and is not prohibited from holding or acquiring land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961”

27. The statutory emphasis in the aforesaid Rule is on the word ‘bona-fide’. Notwithstanding that the Revenue Inspector for that area or the Tahsildar would claim to have personally confirmed that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was not just a member of an agriculturist family but was also personally cultivating the land in question by himself, Mr. R.Ashok who had already established very close contact with Mr. Venkatesh Murthy (who was a corporator by then) was positively bound to know that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was not an agriculturist at all and that it was altogether improbable that a corporator at the BBMP was himself cultivating the 4 acres of Government land that he had illegally encroached upon. Despite such familiarity with Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, the decision of Mr. R.Ashok as the Chairman of the Committee to sanction regularisation of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy’s encroachment is a clear illustration of the extent of lawlessness, insatiable greed and disdain for the laws that public servants have come to display when dealing with valuable Government lands that come to their custody and safekeeping.

28. Clause (iv) of Rule 108-F would state the applicant is to be “a bonafide agriculturist cultivating the land personally and is not prohibited from holding or acquiring land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961”. In terms of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, a person whose annual income exceeds Rs.2 Lakhs is ineligible to acquire agricultural lands in the territory of the State of Karnataka. As such, the enquiry before the authorities that were considering whether Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was an agriculturist was simply a question of probing his wealth and income at the relevant time. Though it is now clear that the authorities had expressed a very spurious satisfaction then that the said Mr. Venkatesh Murthy would qualify as an ‘agriculturist’, the Petitioners would invite the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the fraudulent misrepresentation engaged in by Mr. Venkatesh Murthy. In dealing with such fraudulent misrepresentation of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, the Petitioners hope to shed light on the fact that, when the Task Force Report had disclosed that more than 5000 acres of Government lands had been illegally regularised in favour of undeserving persons, the beneficiaries of such illegal regularisation never seemed to be poor peasants or landless labourers. Had only the regularisation been illegally effected by the Government to provide subsistence to poor peasants or landless labourers, very few citizens might have expressed outrage or revolt thereat. Instead, when persons who are already possessed of substantial means and finances enter into a criminal conspiracy with the public servants to plunder Government resources in a fit of cancerous disdain for the public good, it becomes necessary to punish the biggest violators and to set a deterrent for their criminal brethren in society. This would be the only way to vindicate the rule of law.

29. In furtherance of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, the Petitioners submit about the financial wealth of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy at the time he had sought the regularisation of his encroachment of Government lands. The Petitioners submit herewith, a copy of the ‘Statement of Assets and Liabilities’ that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy had submitted to the Election Commission of India in April, 2012 as part of his nomination to contest from the Shantinagara Legislative Assembly Constituency in the State of Karnataka. A copy of the same is produced herewith as Annexure B. An English summary of Annexure B that was prepared by a different entity but which has been verified to be correct by the Petitioners is produced herewith as Annexure B1.

30. As on 24-Jan-2005, the date on which the Regularisation Committee went on to regularise the encroachment of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, it appears that Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was required to show that his annual income did not exceed Rs.8000 rather than a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. A perusal of Annexure B and B1 would reveal that: (‘possession’ may also mean ‘ownership’, for this limited purpose)

a) As on 24-Jan-2005, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was in possession of three separate agricultural lands the historical acquisition and development cost of which stood at Rs.12,10,000 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ten Thousand). In fact, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy appears to have gone on a buying spree of these three agricultural properties within a short span of 30 days between 20-Nov-2004 and 20-Dec-2004;

b) As on 24-Jan-2005, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was in possession of two Non-Agricultural lands, the historical cost of which stood at Rs.5,27,170 (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred Seventy Only). The development cost of these two properties is shown at Rs.3,78,81,200 (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Eight Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred only). Assuming that the development cost of these two properties was incurred prior to 24-Jan-2005, the historical and development cost of these two non-agricultural lands as on 24-Jan-2005 comes to Rs.3,84,08,370;

c) As on 24-Jan-2005, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was in possession of one residential building the historical cost of acquisition of which stood at Rs.8,25,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only). Assuming that the development cost of the same, shown at Rs.2,58,00,000 (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs only) was incurred prior to 24-Jan-2005, the historical and development cost of one residential building in the possession of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy stood at Rs.2,66,25,000 (Rupees Two Crores Sixty Six Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only);

d) As such, as on 24-Jan-2005, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy was clearly in possession of immovable properties on the acquisition of which, he has reported a spending of at least Rs.25,62,170 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Seventy only). This, by no stretch of imagination, would have qualified Mr. Venkatesh Murthy as an agriculturist who was personally cultivating his own land and whose annual income should not have exceeded Rs.8000 or even Rs.2,00,000. Even worse, if the development cost of the immovable properties in the possession of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy as shown at Rs.6,36,81,200 is assumed to have taken place prior to 24-Jan-2005, Mr. R.Ashok, the chairman of the Regularisation Committee must be taken to have made a corrupt decision to sanction the regularisation of 8 acres of Government lands that had been encroached upon by his political follower, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy aided by his wife, who, the record would show, was neither a poor peasant nor a landless labourer but was awash in lakhs or with crores of rupees.

31. For the purpose of this application, these Petitioners do not invite the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the more concerning aspect of how, Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, who does not seem to engage in any business or vocation except ‘social work’ could have amassed a net wealth of more than Rs.10 crores in 2012. A person whose sole income is thought to comprise of salaries earned as a corporator and later on, as a Mayor with the BBMP over a period of a decade is unlikely to show a net wealth of even a crore rupees - assuming an extraordinary penchant for saving one’s earnings.

32. The corruption involved in the regularisation of encroachment by Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and his wife had caught the attention of the media in the year 2012. It was only thereafter that the Government was constrained to proceed to cancel the regularisation effected in the name of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy. On 08-Jun-2002, the Assistant Commissioner for the Bangalore South Sub-Division was constrained to cancel the regularisation of 8 acres that had been effected in respect of encroachment of 8 acres of lands by Mr. Venkatesh Murthy and his wife in Sy.No.242 of Somanahalli village, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. The Petitioners have come into possession of a ‘Note’ that was prepared by the officers of the Government during heightened media coverage of the aforesaid corrupt acts. A copy of the said ‘Note’ is produced herewith as Annexure D. An English translation of the same is produced herewith as Annexure D1. Further, a copy of the Order dated 08-Jun-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner cancelling the regularisation effected in favour of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy on 24-Jan-2005 is produced herewith as Annexure E. An English translation of the same is produced herewith as Annexure E1. In pertinent part, the said document states that:
…A Bagarhukkum file has been generated in respect of Sri.D.Venkatesh Murthy and five other members; of this, as alleged by the villagers, Sri.D.Venkatesh Murthy and Smt.K.Prabha were husband and wife and they were members of the same family. They have, therefore, illegally obtained grant of land in their names from the government by furnishing bogus information. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk has recommended for the cancellation of the land-grant in respect of both the aforesaid grantees in terms of Section 108 (K) of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules 1991.

Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondents on 6-06-2012 to show cause as to why, the said grant of land should not be cancelled and they were directed to appear before this Court on 8-06-2012. The said notice was duly served on the respondents. The matter was taken up for enquiry and the same was conducted on 8-06-2012. The respondents simply remained absent. On a perusal of the relevant documents, it is proven that the respondents in this case secured regularization of the aforesaid lands to themselves by knowingly furnishing false information.

ORDER

On the basis of the facts mentioned above, in exercise of power vested under Section 108 (K) of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules 1991, the Order vide Official Memorandum No.LND/RUC/CR/43/ 99-2000 dated 20-02-2004 granting 4-00 acres of land each, in favour of the respondents Sri.D. Venkatesha Murthy, S/o.Devappa and Smt.K.Prabha, D/o.Kenchappa (Totally 8-00 acres of land) in Sy.No.242 of Somanahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, is hereby annulled and shall stand cancelled with immediate effect. It is also ordered to designate this reclaimed land as that of the Government in the R.T.C. for the said land.

33. However, despite the Government coming to know of the calculated misdeeds and corrupt acts of Mr. R.Ashok in knowingly, deliberately and intentionally recommending and prevailing upon the various Government officers to regularise lands in favour of his own friends and followers despite an absolute prohibition contained in Section 94-A of the KLR, the Government has chosen to not initiate any prosecution of Mr. R.Ashok for his aforesaid corrupt acts most likely because he appears to have prevailed upon the present Government from doing so, despite considerable public pressure to act against him.

34. Incidentally, several villages from Somanahalli village had complained to the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore on 10-Sep-2012 against the corruption and misdeeds of Mr. R.Ashok in respect of regularisation of public lands to his own wealthy friends and followers without the least regard to the prohibition under the law. A copy of the same is marked as Annexure E. It says:

Sri R.Ashok, was the Member of Legislative Assembly in respect of the Uttarahalli Assembly Constituency during 1997 and is currently, the Deputy Chief Minister. The said Sri R.Ashok has, during his period as the ‘Chairman’ of the Bagar Hukkum Saguvali Akrama Samithi has given away hundreds of acres of Government lands situated in different survey numbers of Somanahalli, Kaggalipura, B.M.Kaval of Uttarahalli Hobli and Agara Village of Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluk to his own devout followers and to members of the Mahanagara Palike in the guise of giving away such land to landless labourers and peasants. Lands that were primarily reserved only for persons from the economically backward classes, people below poverty line and to Schedule Castes and Tribes have been illegally diverted by the said Sri R.Ashok.

In one such instance, he has granted the lands in favour of former Mahanagarapalike Members. Incidentally, three of the former Mahanagarapalike Members who had illegally received favours of Government lands from Sri R.Ashok went on to occupy these postings – one is currently holding the position of the Mayor, another is holding the position of Deputy Mayor and yet another person had held the position of Deputy Mayor.

…During the period of R.Ashok, the Uttarahalli Assembly Constituency which was represented by him had possessed the largest area and population in the country. There were lakhs of acres of lands within its limits…

The law lays down that giving away of Government lands under the Bagar Hukkum Saguvali Scheme is to strictly follow the following conditions - out of the available Government land identified for giving away, 50% shall be given to the Scheduled Caste/Tribes, 10% to Ex-Servicemen, 10% to the Freedom Fighters and the remaining lands are to be given only to eligible landless persons and peasants and even then, the land to such landless labourers and peasants is not to exceed 4 acres, 38 guntas.

While the law could not have been clearer and the same was issued only after a careful deliberation at the Legislative Assembly, the same has been most blatantly violated in the process of diverting hundreds of acres of such lands reserved for the depressed communities and landless peasants to urban dwellers who are financially and economically wealthy industrialists. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the laws have been knowingly flouted in the process of benefiting the undeserving.

Further, even such giving away of Government land was totally prohibited in respect of lands that were situated within 18 KMs of the limits of Bangalore City. Yet, valuable Governments lands that were barely situated at a distance of 12 KMs from city limits have been illegally conferred on undeserving persons.

The persons who have illegally obtained grant of these lands have already amassed many properties in the name of their family members. Several acres of land have also been registered in their own names.

It is patently proved that officers of the Revenue Department have knowingly furnished false information while acting in concert with the politicians and have thereby, defrauded the Government.

Through all these corrupt and illegal transactions, Government lands have been grabbed in broad daylight and crores of rupees worth of lands has been gobbled up. This whole episode should be suitably investigated and the Government lands should be reclaimed and lands were meant for poor peasants and farmers but diverted for certain persons should be redressed by launching prosecution against the beneficiaries, conspirers and officers of the Government – this is the essence of this complaint.

Necessary documents are enclosed

35. The Petitioners further invite the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the fact that a perusal of Annexure A1 would show that Mr. R.Ashok had further sanctioned regularisation of encroachments by various other individuals not just in Somanahalli village but also in other villages situated in Bangalore South Taluk. The Task Force Report had decisively stated that:
There is not a single village coming outside the 18 km limit of Bangalore City Corporation in Bangalore South taluk and yet 2,112 acres have been regularized.

36. In furtherance of the aforesaid paragraph, the Petitioners would invite the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13(1)(d) thereof reads as under:

13. Criminal, misconduct by a public servant.-

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct.-
(d) if he,--

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public, interest; or

37. Prima facie, the aforementioned acts of Mr. R.Ashok as the Chairman of the Regularisation Committee merits a criminal investigation and possible prosecution in terms of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this regard, notwithstanding that one such corrupt act by Mr. R.Ashok to favour Mr. Venkatesh Murthy has led to the Government realising its folly and cancelling the regularisation made in favour of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, the public need for a criminal investigation of Mr. R.Ashok with respect to all acts of illegal regularisation that he had sanctioned as the Chairman of the Regularisation Committee – in criminal conspiracy or connivance with other public servants and the beneficiaries – would warrant a direction to such effect by this Hon’ble Court.

38. It is respectfully submitted that the Government has deliberately maintained a studied silence on the entire aspect of illegal regularisation of public lands within the 18 KMs radius of the BBMP in terms of Section 94-A of the KLR notwithstanding the fact that the same has occasioned to the Government, in the very words of its own committee, a loss of at least Rs.20000 Crores.

39. It is too well established that when a statute casts a prohibition upon regularisation of lands within the 18 Kms limits of BBMP, it was never permissible for the executive Government or for its officers to knowingly or even unknowingly regularise such lands and all such regularisations would count as a blatant violation of the statutory prohibition and are therefore, prima facie and essentially void and of no legal effect. As such, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Government to pass appropriate orders to recall all such regularisation of lands that were made under Section 94-A of the KLR in utter violation of the condition stipulated in sub-section (4) of the said Section and to reclaim possession of all of those public lands without any further delay. It is further submitted that notwithstanding that the said issue had been repeatedly brought to the notice of the Government of the day through arguments of counsel in this very proceeding, the studied silence of the Government clearly goes to establish that it is not committed to reverse the grave illegality that has been made in the name of Section 94-A of the KLR in respect of public lands situated within 18 Kms from the BBMP limits and that, even the whopping loss of Rs.20000 Crores appears to be of no consequence to the Government.

40. It is further submitted that the persons who have occasioned such loss of Rs.20000 Crores to the Government are not landless labourers, destitutes or persons without any financial means or support. Rather, as stated in the Report of the Task Force, such persons are mostly builders, land developers and people involved in the real estate trade. As such, the reluctance of the Government to recall its blatantly illegal orders is a grave cause for concern and therefore, it is both necessary and imperative for this Hon’ble Court to direct the executive Government to recall all such illegal orders and to take possession of all of those lands that rightly belong to it. Then alone, the rule of law that has been blatantly and wantonly flouted by the officers of the Government would stand vindicated.

41. Equally, the Government has clearly demonstrated its reluctance to direct criminal prosecution of the public servants whose willingness to blatantly violate the various statutory prohibitions was very much necessary for private persons from organised criminal gangs, land mafia and builders to first encroach upon very valuable public lands that were situated within 18 KMs from the BBMP and to then, claim to the Government that they were all destitutes or landless labourers and to have such patently bogus and false claims to receive the seal of approval from a host of Government officers and legislators. This reluctance is again, illegal and is very harmful to the observance of the rule of law in the State in view of the fact that such corruption and illegality has now become public knowledge.

42. Further, even if the Government of the day would direct criminal prosecution of those whose role was substantial in effecting the said episode of illegality, the initial reluctance of the Government that has been so clearly evident until now is likely to hamper a free and fair investigation and prosecution of those who most deserve such prosecution if the same were to be entrusted to police agencies that are under the control of the State Government. As such, for the vindication of the rule of law and for the effective, fearless, prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of those persons who were instrumental in effecting this shameful episode of illegality and corruption that has occasioned a loss of Rs.20000 Crores upon the Government, this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider itself to be constrained to direct such investigation and prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the premier investigating agency at the Centre.

43. Further, the Petitioners in this Writ Petition had made a detailed representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, the Hon’ble Governor of Karnataka, the Chief Secretary of the State, the Hon’ble Revenue Minister and to the learned Advocate General for the State on 15-Dec-2013 in regard to the aforesaid issues and the concluding part of the said representation reads as under: (a copy thereof is produced herewith as Annexure F)

10. We hereby request the Government of Karnataka to immediately direct the Deputy Commissioner for the Bangalore Urban District as well the Tahsildars of the five Taluks therein to immediately reject and to return all applications for regularisation made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in respect of lands that are situated within 18 KMs from the BBMP limits.

11. We further request that the Government of Karnataka entrust the aforesaid scheme of illegality that has been duly noted in pg.43 to 45 of the Task Force Report to the Central Bureau of Investigation for an immediate criminal investigation and prosecution.

The Petitioners submit that none of the recipients of the aforesaid representation have chosen to even respond or even otherwise reject the request made by these Petitioners.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the grave facts and circumstances evidenced before this Hon’ble Court, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Direct an investigation, preferably and chiefly, by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the grave illegalities, nepotism and favouritism in the matter of corruptly and fraudulently giving away of Government lands within a radius of 18 Kilometres from the limits of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) to wholly ineligible persons in gross violation of several provisions of the Karnataka Land (Revenue) Act, 1964 and Rules and Regulations made thereunder and more particularly, in gross violation of the prohibition specified in Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land (Revenue) Act, 1964 that has also been noticed and commented at Pages 43 to 46 of Report of the Government Task Force For Recovery Of Public Land And Its Protection published in June, 2011;

b) Direct a prompt prosecution, in pursuance of investigation directed under a) above, of those private persons and public servants whose role, connivance, conspiracy or influence is principally established as having caused or contributed to the aforesaid gravely illegal act of nepotism and favouritism in the matter of corruptly and fraudulently giving away of Government lands as stated above;

c) Direct the Government of Karnataka to annul and to reverse all such regularisations stated in a) above that were made in respect of lands that were, at the relevant time when made, situated within a distance of 18 Kilometres from the limits of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) in respect of such period as may be determined, in the interest of justice and public good, by this Hon’ble Court;

d) Direct the Investigating and Prosecuting Agency to attach and recover to the custody of the Government of Karnataka, all such properties and wealth that represent the proceeds of crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other like penal statutes in respect of acts that are prosecuted in terms of aforesaid direction b) above;

e) Pass any other Order or to issue any direction as may be deemed expedient by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS SHALL EVER BE DUTY BOUND TO PRAY.

Bangalore

Date: 02-Apr-2014
SRI K.V.DHANANJAY
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS