Criminal case against KAS officers for forest law violation

Bengaluru: In a first, a city court has ordered a criminal case against two senior KAS officers for violating the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, by changing the status of 18 acres of land in Bengaluru from forest to non-forest land.

N Ravindra Kumar, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru Urban, approached the Metropolitan Magistrate court days after an inquiry by the vigilance wing of the department found that Bengaluru North Assistant Commissioner MG Shivanna and Bengaluru East taluk tahsildar Ajith Kumar Rai had “illegally” changed the status of a 17-acre-34-gunta land in survey number 47 of Kothnur in KR Puram Hobli into revenue land.

The two officials were booked by the forest department for illegally converting the land, whose value was estimated at about Rs 500 crore. Though prior approval from the state and Union government was mandatory to divert forest land, the officials had issued an ex parte order to turn it into non-forest land.

While the vigilance wing had said there was a “conspiracy to grab the land”, the government had sought the FIR, charge sheet, witness list and documents to grant sanction for Shivanna's prosecution.

The department had then approached the court.

Prior sanction from the government is mandatory to initiate proceedings against civil servants under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act or under Section 197 of the CrPC.

The Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court 1, Mayo Hall, noted that the Supreme Court had laid down a ground rule for cases under the general law.

In CBI vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, the apex court had said, “If the offences on the charge of which the public servant is expected to be put on a trial include the offences other than those punishable under PC Act, that is to say under the general law (IPC), the court is bound to examine at the time of cognisance and also, if necessary, at subsequent stages as to whether there is a necessity of sanction under 197 of the CrPC.”

The metropolitan magistrate also noted that the object behind the instrument of prior sanction was to protect the public servants from frivolous sanctions.

“In the case in hand, the accused are public servants not removable from their office. However, the complaint is not filed under the PC Act. It was filed under the Forest Conservation Act for violating the law therein,” the court said.

The judge further noted that the land in question was upheld as forest land by the High Court of Karnataka and the apex court had subsequently dismissed a petition challenging the high court order.

“Accused number 1 and 2 not only violated and disobeyed the order of the High Court of Karnataka but also (did) not consider Section 2 of the conservation of forest act. They neither brought such things before the complainant (DCF) nor availed any approval from the central government,” the judge said, ordering the registration of a criminal case against Shivanna and Rai.

Forest Minister Eshwar B Khandre, who had ordered the vigilance inquiry into the matter earlier this year, welcomed the order.

“I had directed the officers to book the case because we need to send a warning to the errant officials. This is a preventive measure so that revenue officers do not violate the rules governing forest land,” Khandre told DH.