Tanvi Sinha
In yet another blow to the CM of Karnataka, BS Yediyurappa’s corruption case, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the FIR that was filed against him on the illegal land de-notification case.
The HC with the single-judge bench of Justice John Michael Cunha rolled out the decision.
The land in question refers to the 1.11-acre land at Gangenahalli, which is part of the Matadahalli layout in RT Nagar.
Senior advocate CV Nagnesh, argued for the petitioner, the Chief Minister, by saying that even if the statement seemed correct on face value, they don’t necessarily need to mean to be correct and that they were done on an official duty basis, not outside that capacity.
Special Public Prosecutor Venkatesh A. Arabatti argued against the petitioners stating that the CMs – Yediyurappa and former CM Kumaraswamy- ignored all legal principles and dishonestly de-notified the land that was acquired by the government and went against the Land Acquisition Act 1984 to profit themselves.
Here he cited the fact that the de-notified land had been sold by the mother-in-law of the former CM to his brother-in-law.
The court declared the real question to be if the order was passed by the petitioner by abuse of power or there was some kind of common object of conspiracy behind it which it said could only be known for sure after a thorough investigation.
The petitioner also tried for an amendment to the petition where they tried to amend it based on 17A of the PC Act to further act as a point to quash the complaint and while this was opposed by the respondents the court allowed it.
Along the process of the hearing, the court read an affidavit made by Hiremath, the man the Lokayukta police had under section 420 of the IPC, had the case registered on directions of, in 2015, to now speak in favour of the petitioner –
“I respectfully submit that a careful examination of the record of the case would reveal that the petitioner while placing reliance on the notings put up by the officials concerned in the matter, which in a nutshell, indicated that the Bangalore Development Authority has not been able to have the advantage of the possession of the notified lands and that fact of taking possession of the lands has remained only on paper though not actually taking of physical possession of the said lands and that a private layout has also been formed and that number of unauthorized structures have also come into existence over the lands notified for acquisition etc., has ordered de-notified of the said lands.”
The Court expressed their disgust in a plot they believe was built in the respondent’s “eagerness” to justify the acts of the petitioners where they say he went as far as to act as judge, prosecutor, and investigator by making grand claims of careful examinations and other such things.
The court also mentioned their distaste for the petitioner using a well-respected senior advocate to hide behind and firmly refused to quash the FIR.
