Bengaluru: Karnataka high court Tuesday refused to quash criminal proceedings against former Chintamani MLA Chowda Reddy and former Chintamani Town Municipal Council commissioner BH Narayanappa in a decade-old alleged govt land-grabbing case, holding that the investigation must continue.Observing that allegations of land grabbing by those in public office strike at the foundation of public trust, Justice M Nagaprasanna said: “Land grabbing by ordinary citizens is a serious illegality. Land grabbing by those clothed with political power strikes at something far deeper — it erodes public faith in governance itself.”“When custodians of public trust become beneficiaries of alleged public wrongs, this court cannot permit 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. Investigation, therefore, is not merely warranted, it is indispensable,” the judge observed while dismissing the petitions of the accused.The case stems from a complaint lodged with Lokayukta police on April 24, 2016, by R Venkataramana, alleging that 1 acre and 19 guntas of govt kharab land at Kannampalli village in Chintamani taluk was encroached upon by MC Balaji and MC Sudhakar, sons of Reddy. The complaint alleged that they, with their father’s help, illegally formed residential sites and sold them, while Narayanappa facilitated the process by getting the govt land recorded in their favour.Challenging the proceedings, Reddy argued that neither he nor his sons were MLAs when the complaint was filed and claimed the case was politically motivated. Narayanappa contended that he had no role in the alleged offences, as he had served in the municipality much earlier and retired in 2020.Examining the records, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that a survey sketch showed 37 sites had allegedly been carved out on the govt land after it was shown as belonging to Reddy, Balaji, and Sudhakar.The court also observed that although the available material prima facie indicated that Balaji and Sudhakar were direct beneficiaries, they were not named as accused. Calling this a matter of concern, the judge said the issue could be examined during investigation, but the allegations clearly disclosed cognisable offences warranting a full probe.
