ANNAYAPPA AND SRI. RAMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND SRI. NARAYANA ADIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners are claiming to be in possession of land bearing Sy.No. 141/1 of Laggere Village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring about 20 guntas. This was the subject matter of proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act' for brevity), which has attained finality in holding that the father of the petitioners had not made out a case of tenancy. However, it transpires that the petitioners claiming under their father have now instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that they have perfected their title over the very land by way of adverse possession and during the pendency of the said suit where the respondent has also entered appearance, the respondent has filed a complaint alleging that there is criminal trespass in respect of the land by the petitioners. The court below having taken cognizance and having issued process, has also proceeded to frame charges after further proceedings. The petitioners had sought discharge at the time of framing of charges and the said application was rejected and the charges have been framed. Notwithstanding the same, the present petition is filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are in possession and have been in continuous possession notwithstanding the proceedings under the KLR Act and appeals thereon. The learned counsel would further submit that since the civil dispute is pending between the parties, it is only in order to bring pressure on the petitioners that a criminal complaint has been lodged by the petitioners. It cannot be denied that the petitioners continue to be in possession of the property and therefore, seeks to place reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STARTLAWFINDERParamjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others JT 2012 (12) SC 393ENDLAWFINDER. It was a case where the respondent therein had filed a complaint against the appellant, Respondents 3, 4 and five others on the footing that he had let out two shops to one Rajpal Singh on fixed written conditions. After Rajpal Singh vacated, the complainant wanted to run a chicken corner in the said shops. He appointed the appellant as the Manager and invested money for purchase of raw materials. When business was picking up and according to the complainant, the appellant had conspired with the others to grab the shop. Therefore, he filed a civil suit claiming tenancy. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the Respondent No. 2 complainant had lodged a criminal case. It is that which was sought to be challenged before the High Court and the High Court having quashed the proceedings, the appellant was before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has observed that it was appropriate if the civil dispute had been allowed to run its course and it was improper for the High Court to quash the proceedings notwithstanding the pending civil dispute. The learned counsel seeks to place reliance on the same. In the case on hand, it is not denied that insofar as the proceedings relating to the land on the basis of the claim of tenancy of the petitioners is concerned, has attained finality. The further proceedings now initiated by the petitioners to claim a declaration that they have perfected title to the land in question by adverse possession, is mere surplusage and the very fact that the petitioners claim as tenants in the first place would disentitle them to claim adverse possession. That being so and the court below having framed charges in the criminal proceedings that are initiated, it is highly improper for this Court to quash the proceedings at this stage. The petition is accordingly, rejected. The observations made hereinabove is the position of law. It need not however influence the court below in coming to a decision straightaway. It may examine the position of law and then follow the same.