Encroachment of Government 'B' Kharab Land by Public Servants Warrants Expeditious Investigation Under Corruption Laws

The petitioners (Accused No. 1, a former MLA, and Accused No. 2, a former Municipal Commissioner) sought to quash FIR No. 4/2017 involving sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 447 r/w 34 of the IPC

Revenue records from 1965 to 2026 classified Survey No. 11 as "Hullu Banni Kharab" (Government land)

It was alleged that Accused No. 1 and his sons encroached upon this land, converted it into residential sites alongside their private lands (Sy. Nos. 12 and 13), and sold them to third parties

Accused No. 1 had previously admitted to possible encroachment in a letter to the Deputy Commissioner but later pleaded "adverse possession" in response to a show-cause notice

Accused No. 2 was the Commissioner who allegedly facilitated illegal khata registrations

1. Whether the investigation into the alleged land grabbing and corruption should be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether a former public servant can be prosecuted for acts of corruption committed while in office despite no longer holding that specific position

3. Whether "B Kharab" land can be converted for private residential use or claimed via adverse possession against the State

The court primarily applied Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, regarding criminal misconduct by public servants

Rule 21(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, which classifies "B Kharab" land as unarable land reserved for public purposes, making it ineligible for private ownership

The court followed the precedent in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, holding that an FIR is not an encyclopedia and police must be allowed to investigate cognizable offenses

The court further applied the principles from The Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Executive Officer, affirming that Government ‘B Kharab’ land cannot be appropriated by individuals

The court found that despite the immutable status of Survey No. 11 as Government land in revenue records, the petitioners treated it as ancestral property through a partition deed and subsequent sales

The court rejected the argument of "adverse possession," noting that such a plea itself constitutes a tacit admission of possessing Government land

Regarding the claim of political rivalry, the court observed that the existence of detailed preliminary enquiry reports and admitted encroachment footprints made the allegations triable

The court reasoned that since the land had been fragmented and sold, Accused No. 1's offer to "return" the land was legally and factually hollow

For Accused No. 2, the court held that his role in issuing khatas during his tenure required investigation to determine criminal connivance under the Act

The court ruled that "B Kharab" land is incapable of private appropriation

The court vacated all interim stays and directed the investigating agency (Lokayukta) to conclude the investigation with "utmost expedition" within an outer limit of six months