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