Karnataka High Court Upholds Land Grabbing FIR Against Ex-Minister Chowda Reddy, Asks Why MLA Son Not Made Accused Despite Material
Land grabbing by those with political power erodes public faith, Court remarked.
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a 2017 FIR against former minister Chowda Reddy and former Chintamani Municipal Commissioner B.H. Narayanappa, over allegations of illegal grabbing of Government land. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
On another note, the court also enquired to the Lokayukta as to why no action has been initiated against sons of the former minister, Congress MLA M.C. Sudhakar and M.C. Balaji, despite material prima facie disclosing that they were direct beneficiaries.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while holding that "land grabbing by those clothed with political power erodes public faith", refused to entertain the ex-minister's arguments that the allegations are 'politically motivated'.
“…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 inception in a matter of such gravity. 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 Court observed.
The court also raised eyebrows as to why Chowdareddy's son and current MLA M.C Sudhakar [who served as the Higher Education Minister of the state] has not been arraigned as an accused, along with the other son M.C Balaji, who is also absent from the accused list, since both of them are also prima facie 'beneficiaries' of the alleged transactions.
“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. Yet, since the matter is still at the stage of investigation, this Court consciously refrains from making further observations. At this stage, the Court is not expected to weigh evidence with the precision of trial. The Court only examines whether the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. They unmistakably do. Therefore, investigation in the least becomes imperative”, the single judge bench said further.
The Lokayukta had registered a case based on a complaint filed by a social worker/municipal councilor who alleged that the former minister and his sons, conspiring with the municipality officials had usurped government land.
It was alleged that 1 Acre 19 guntas of 'Hullu Banni Kharab' (land unfit for cultivation) land in Survey No.11 of Kannampalli village in Chintamani Taluk was encroached by the political family when Chowdareddy was a MLA in 1989.
It was alleged that Reddy's family initially purchased two plots adjacent to the Kharab land and converted it for non-agricultural purposes. Gradually, the layout was extended to the Kharab land as well as per the Lokayukta.
Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1964 declares that 'B Kharab' land is Government land reserved for specified public purposes, the court said.
“…It [Kharab land] cannot be transformed into a private commodity merely because power, influence, or administrative silence aided such transformation”, the court emphasized.
The court further said that even a "single gunta" of Government plot cannot be appropriated by private citizens. It further observed that 37 sites were seen as formed on the Government land. After family partition, both the sons of Chowdareddy, including the MLA Sudhakar, allegedly received 7 sites each carved out of the Kharab land in question.
“The conclusion therefore is not difficult to draw. 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 court added.
As per Lokayukta, many sites from these plots were sold to the Government Employees House Building Cooperative Society through an unregistered General Power of Attorney (GPA). The court noted that third party interest was created, and the government land vanished beneath concrete and private possession.
Purportedly, in 2015, Chowdareddy had written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner offering to return the land if it was proved that he or his family had encroached upon the government land. But the court highlighted that such an offer was merely impossible by the transgression of time and change of circumstances.
“…. there remained nothing to restore. The land had already been converted into sites, alienated, and absorbed into private hands. One cannot return to the State what has already been fragmented, sold, and built upon”, the court pointed out.
On Chowdareddy's argument that the land was in his family's continuous possession since 1950 and that they had perfected the title through adverse possession, the court said that the claim of adverse possession in itself was 'an implicit admission' of encroachment.
“…. A person claiming adverse possession does not say, “I do not possess.” He says, “I possess, and though the land belongs to another, my possession has matured into title.” Thus, the defence itself tacitly acknowledges possession over Government land”, the court said.
Similarly, Narayanappa, the former Commissioner, argued that he has only lawfully discharged his duties; however, the court deemed it fit not to drop the charges against him at the nascent stage of proceedings.
While dismissing both the petitions, the Court directed the investigating agency to conclude the probe with utmost expedition since the FIR was alive since 2017.
Case Title: B.H. Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors and Chowdareddy v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: W.P. No.24242/2017 & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
Counsel for Chowdareddy: Adv. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy (Senior Counsel) with Sri Deepak
Counsel for Narayanappa: Adv. B.K. Manjunath
SPP for Lokayukta: Adv. Venkatesh S. Arbatti
Counsel for Complainant: Advocate Keerthi Reddy with Advocates Mayur D. Bhanu and Padmanabha J.