Criminal case against KAS officials for violation of forest law
Bengaluru: In a first, a city tribunal ordered criminal prosecution against two senior KAS officials for violating the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 and changing the status of 18 acres of land in Bengaluru from forest to land. No forest.
Bengaluru Urban’s assistant conservator of forests N Ravindra Kumar approached the metropolitan magistrate’s tribunal days after an investigation conducted by the department’s monitoring wing revealed that Bengaluru North’s sub-commission officer, MG Shivanna, and Bengaluru’s taluk tehsildar Did it. Ajit Kumar Rai had “illegally” changed the status of land measuring 17 acres and 34 guntas in Studio No. 47 of Kothnoor in KR Puram Hobli as rental land.
Both officials were accused by the forest department of illegally converting the land, which was estimated to be worth around Rs 500 million. Although it was mandatory to take prior approval of the state government and the Center to divert forest land, the authorities had issued an ex-parte order to convert it into non-forest land.
Illegal transfer of government land in Bengaluru: KAS officer files case
Although the surveillance wing had said there was a “land grab conspiracy”, the government had discovered FIRs, cargo logs, lists of witnesses and documents approving Shivanna’s processing.
Later the department moved towards the tribunal.
Prior approval of the government is mandatory for initiating proceedings against public officials on the basis of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC) or Section 197 of the CrPC.
The Metropolitan Traffic Tribunal 1, Mayo Hall, held that the Supreme Court had established a basic rule for cases under the common law.
In the CBI vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal case, the senior tribunal had said: “If the offenses for which the public servant is expected to be tried include offenses other than those punishable under PC law, i.e. the common law According to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), “The Tribunal is bound to investigate at the moment of information and also at a later stage, if necessary, where sanction is required as per Section 197 of the CrPC.”
The Metropolitan Magistrate also pointed out that the instrument of sanction previa was intended to protect public servants from frivolous sanctions.
“In the case before us, the accused are public servants steadfast in their duty. However, the complaint has not been submitted on the basis of PC Act. It was produced under the Forest Conservation Act for violating the law contained therein”, the tribunal said.
The judge further noted that the land in question was confirmed as forest land by the Superior Tribunal of Karnataka and the Superior Tribunal had subsequently dismissed a petition challenging the order of the Superior Tribunal.
“Accused Nos. 1 and 2 not only violated and disobeyed the order of the Superior Tribunal of Karnataka but also disobeyed Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. “Neither produced these things before the demander (DCF) nor took any sanction from the central government,” the judge said while ordering the registration of a criminal case against Shivanna and Rai.
Forest Minister Ishwar B Khandre, who had ordered a surveillance inquiry into the issue earlier this year, accepted the order with satisfaction.
