Even High Court building not safe then: Karnataka HC on private party's claim over Police Quarters land

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday took exception to a claim made by an individual that the land housing police quarters in Bengaluru belongs to him [Srinath Nagaragadde vs State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that if such claims were true, even the High Court building itself would not be safe.

The Court questioned the petitioner's contention that the police occupation of the property was unauthorised.

“That’s why I was telling, if this is permitted, this (High Court) building is (also) not safe," he remarked.

The Court made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Srinath Nagaragadde of Shivamogga, an accused in a criminal case concerning the alleged sale of land on which police quarters are situated in Bengaluru.

Appearing for Nagaragadde, Senior Advocate M Arun Shyam submitted that the land belonged to another accused MR Mahalakshmi, who claimed ownership over the property and had entered into sale agreements with certain individuals who have now been arraigned as accused in the criminal case.

Recalling the nature of the dispute, Justice Nagaprasanna remarked,

“Is this case of police quarters sale? Investigation is going on, let it go. I will take it tomorrow, come on merits. I will answer it.”

Shyam argued that additional documents were on record to support the ownership claim. He contended that the encumbrance certificate continued to stand in the name of the alleged owner and that the prosecution had failed to produce any material demonstrating that the property belonged to the Police Department.

“There are additional documents to show that the EC is standing in the name of the landlord. Nothing is there with the prosecution to show that the land belongs to the Police Department. We will see absolutely zero documents. Consistently, from the 1950s, the land records are standing in the name of accused No.1 and my ancestors,” Shyam said.

However, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the land had been occupied by the Police Department for decades and that police quarters had existed on the property for a long period.

Shyam further informed the Court that two civil suits concerning the property were pending, including one in which the police were parties. He argued that if the State could produce even a single document establishing ownership, the petitioners will withdraw their case.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha opposed the plea. He submitted that the police had been in possession of the property since the 1930s.

“Encroached police quarters is with the police establishment from 1930 and continue to be there. Thereafter they built quarters,” he told the Court.

Following the submission, Justice Nagaprasanna made a light-hearted remark directed at the petitioners.

“Your courage should be appreciated. You sell away police quarters. You have sold the quarters, which is police quarters for the last 15 years and policemen are living there,” he said.

Shyam argued that the agreement holders were being singled out while the alleged owner of the property had not been proceeded against in the same manner.

“That is why I am only before Your Lordships’ hands. No protection at all. Now police lodge a complaint before another police station and they arrested us. They have not secured the vendor, who is the title holder. Now allegation is against the agreement holders.”

After hearing the parties, the High Court adjourned the matter and posted it for further hearing on June 9.