‘Land grabbing by powerful erodes trust’: Karnataka High Court rejects ex-minister’s plea

The Karnataka High Court Tuesday refused to cancel a 2017 criminal case against former minister Chowda Reddy and former Chintamani town municipality commissioner B H Narayanappa, both accused of illegally usurping government land. Coming down heavily on the accused, the court observed that land grabbing by those wielding political power erodes public faith in governance itself.

In his order dated July 7, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that when custodians of public trust become beneficiaries of alleged public wrongs, the court cannot permit an investigation to be throttled at its inception.

“To interdict investigation at this stage would amount to shutting the door on truth before it has even entered the room,” the bench observed.

Chowda Reddy, 80, and Narayanappa had approached the High Court seeking the cancellation of an FIR registered by the erstwhile Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 2017. The FIR stemmed from a 2016 complaint filed by R Venkataramana, a former councillor of the Chintamani Municipal Corporation.

The bench in the order also questioned why Congress MLA and former higher education minister M C Sudhakar and his brother M C Balaji, who were direct beneficiaries of the alleged land grab, were not arrayed as accused in the case.

The bench said, “Though the material prima facie discloses that M C Balaji and M C Sudhakar were direct beneficiaries, both stand conspicuously absent from the array of accused. How beneficiaries of allegedly grabbed government land remain outside the dragnet of crime is a matter that raises serious concern.”

The alleged land grab

In 1965–66, land measuring 1 acre 19 guntas in Survey No. 11 of Kannampalli Village, Chintamani Taluk, was classified in the Record of Rights as Hullu Banni Kharab (government grazing/wasteland). Revenue entries from September 29, 2021, through 2026 continue to reflect this exact classification.

Story continues below this ad

However, after Chowda Reddy was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1989, his sons initiated land conversion proceedings for neighbouring agricultural plots for residential use. Subsequently, a family partition deed was drawn up in which M.C. Balaji and M C Sudhakar (the sitting legislator) each received 7 residential sites carved out of Survey No. 11, the government-owned land.

Slamming the move, the court said, “Government land appears to have been treated as though it was ancestral property, partitioned inter se amongst family members, and dealt with as a commodity of private ownership. What could not legally be owned appears to have been privately divided; what could never be alienated appears to have been bartered within the family.”

The beneficiaries then sold these illegally carved-out plots, thereby creating third-party rights. The scam unravelled in 2014 when a local councillor formally asked the Tahsildar if Survey No. 11 had ever been legally allotted to any institution.

The alleged land grab came to light in 2014, when a councillor sought information from the Tahsildar on whether Survey No. 11 had ever been allotted to any Government institution.

Story continues below this ad

Media attention, public scrutiny

Once the Tahsildar confirmed the land belonged strictly to the state, the issue sparked heavy media and public scrutiny. Initially, Chowda Reddy submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner stating that if he or his family had encroached upon the land, it would be returned to the state.

The bench noted that this admission meant the encroachment stood virtually acknowledged. However, there was nothing left to restore because the land had already been sub-divided, sold off, and absorbed into private hands.

Following inspections by the Tahsildar and the Deputy Director of Land Records, the assistant commissioner was ordered to remove the illegal layouts. When the Tahsildar issued an eviction notice to Chowda Reddy and his sons, the family dramatically shifted their legal stance, claiming they were now in “adverse possession” (legal ownership because they had occupied the state property uninterrupted for a long period).

Rejecting the petitioners’ arguments, the high court declared that the glaring facts disclose serious, triable issues that make a thorough inquiry indispensable. The court has directed the investigating agency to conclude its probe with utmost expedition, wrapping it up within a strict six-month deadline.