Supreme Court refers BS Yediyurappa land de-notification case to larger bench

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred its verdict on the plea by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader BS Yediyurappa to quash a land denotification from 2012, after noting that the case raises certain legal questions that were already slated to be considered by a larger bench..The case against Yediyurappa involves allegations of corruption when he was Chief Minister of Karnataka. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was slated to pronounce its judgment on whether the case could legally stand today. However, since another pending case already involves similar legal questions that were referred to a larger bench, the Division Bench tagged Yediyurappa's plea with that case. "When we were about to start working (on the judgment), we realised there was another order passed by coordinate bench on 16th April 2024 - Shamin Khan vs. Debashish Chakrabarty and Ors - the very same issues are referred to the larger Bench. We felt propriety demands (that this matter also be referred to same Bench)...In this order also, we have formulated the issues, we have said that, while preparing the judgment...we came across an order of this court dated April 16, 2024 passed by coordinate bench…We have reproduced entire order…As for maintaining judicial disciple, the coordinate bench of this court has refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue, which is under reference to a larger bench, we deem it appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred matter, Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors," the Bench said..The Court proceeded to order the Court's registry to place Yediyurappa's case before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders..The case involves allegations that government land earmarked for industrial development was illegally de-notified, resulting in substantial losses to the State exchequer.An industrialist named Alam Pasha claimed that Yediyurappa had entered into a criminal conspiracy with others to withdraw the approval granted by a High Level Clearance Committee for allotment of 26 acres of land at Devanahalli Industrial Area in Bengaluru Rural District to Pasha.Pasha's 2012 complaint was initially quashed by the High Court citing lack of proper sanction from the competent authority to prosecute Yediyurappa and other public servants. However, after Yediyurappa and the others demitted office, Pasha filed a second complaint which was registered in 2014. Pasha argued that sanction was no longer needed to prosecute Yediyurappa and the others, who no longer held public office. In 2016, a special court dismissed this complaint as well, although it granted Pasha liberty to file another complaint once he got sanction. Pasha then approached the Karnataka High Court for relief. In 2021, the High Court set aside the trial court order and held that the second complaint against Yediyurappa and the others accused can proceed in accordance with law. "Respondents having demitted the office which was alleged to have been abused by them at the time of commission of alleged offences, the sanction for prosecution of the accused is not necessary," the High Court reasoned. This ruling was challenged by Yediyurappa before the Supreme Court..During the hearings, the top court had observed that a central issue was whether prior sanction was needed in this case (since Yediyurappa has demitted public office) to investigate the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after the 2018 amendment. The amendment states that sanction is required to prosecute public servants even if they are no longer serving.Yediyurappa's counsel, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, argued that the facts and evidence cited in the two complaints are largely the same. He also argued that the Karnataka High Court had erred when it quashed a related 2015 case only on technical grounds without examining its merits. .Notably, in 2023, the Karnataka High Court had quashed another case registered in 2015 against Yediyurappa that also involved allegations that he had misused his position to illegally de-notify land when he was the CM. This 2015 case was lodged on the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.The High Court quashed this case after finding merit in a submission that a coordinate bench of the Court had already addressed allied allegations, while also ruling that the CAG report could not serve as the basis for a criminal case..Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and R Basant and Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar appeared for the State of Karnataka. .Corrigendum: An earlier version of this article had mentioned the facts in another land denotification case. The error is regretted. .[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]