Petitioner seems to have been “compromised”, Plea in SC challenges withdrawal of case against DK Shivakumar, BS Yedyurappa

The curious withdrawal of the appeal in the alleged land grabbing case against Karnataka Minister and Congress leader DK Shivakumar and BJP Leader BS Yeddyurappa in Supreme Court might generate controversy.Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, an intervenor in the case, has now filed an application seeking recall of the Supreme Court order of February 21 by which the Court had allowed the petitioner, Kabbale Gowda to withdraw the SLP against Shivakumar and Yeddyurappa..The case was withdrawn after the petitioner made a mentioning of the matter on February 21 pursuant to which the court took the matter on board and allowed the request to withdraw the case..In the recall application, it has been stated that the mentioning was made without informing the intervenor..What makes this recall application interesting is that the intervenor makes a controversial claim that the petitioner might have been compromised and that there was a change of counsel to enable the withdrawal..But first some background..What is the case?.The land in question, around 4.20 acres, was notified land which had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 prohibits the transfer of land acquired by the government..Despite that, DK Shivakumar had acquired the land from one BK Srinivasan. Shivakumar was the Urban Development Minister during that period..He had got the kathas, pahanies and mutation carried out in December 2003, while he was serving as the Urban Development Minister. It has been alleged that no process of inviting objections or mandatory waiting period of 30 days was followed in getting the entries mutated. An investigation by the police revealed that at time of mutation, the entries were in the name of BDA. Even before the de-notification, the entries were mutated in the name of the accused without notice to the BDA..Shivakumar had then entered into a Joint Development Agreement with Prudential Housing and Infrastructure Development Ltd, and sought a change of land use from industrial to residential..He is then alleged to have written three letters in his own name seeking de-notification of land while concealing that he is the owner of the land. He is alleged to have cited previous owner, Srinivasan – who had by then passed away – as the owner of the land..The land was eventually de-notified by the Yeddyurappa government..The trial was underway against Shivakumar under the Prevention of Corruption Act, when the High Court intervened and quashed the case, holding that no criminal case is made out..Appeal in Supreme Court and curious mentioning and withdrawal.The Karnataka government had not appealed against the said decision, leaving it to the private complainant Kabbale Gowda to appeal against the judgment..The appeal was filed in Supreme Court in 2016 but formal notice was issued to Shivakumar nearly two years later, in January 2018..The matter was pending when the case was mentioned out of the blue on February 21 seeking permission to withdraw the case..The Bench of Justices AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah took the matter on board noted the request made by the Counsel for Kabbale Gowda, Anantha Narayana MG and allowed the withdrawal of the petition..The order passed on that day reads:.“Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw these Special Leave Petitions. Permission granted. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”.The Recall Application.Samaj Parivartan Samudaya has now objected to this order of February 21 and moved the Court seeking recall of the order..The application states that the case is of grave public importance as the accused are MLAs in Karnataka Legislative Assembly..One of the accused is a former Chief Minister of Karnataka while the other is sitting Cabinet Minister, the petition states..The State is in cahoots with the accused and did not approach the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment. In fact, the State authorities abdicated all of their responsibilities by not pursuing the prosecution of the case at any stage, the application alleges..Thus, the burden of prosecution fell upon the private individuals who have been constantly intimidated, the applicant contends..Noting that another petitioner, TJ Abraham had already withdrawn his SLP earlier, the applicant makes the controversial allegation – that the petitioner, Kabbale Gowda who withdrew the case on February 21 might have been compromised..“It seems that the petitioner/ original complainant has been compromised and has chosen to withdraw the SLP.”.Despite the complainant being compromised, the complaint is not. The complaint stands on its own feet and has to be controverted on merits, the applicant submits..The applicant also states that the petitioner, in fact, changed his lawyer in order to enable the withdrawal..“It is to be noted that there as a change of counsel to enable the withdrawal of the SLP.”.The application alleges that on the day the mentioning was made, the intervenor was not even informed of the mentioning in order to subvert the cause of justice..“The impunity with which the accused seem to have acted is a blot on the rule of law in this country”, the petitions states before praying for the restoration of the appeal and recall of the February 21 order..SC agrees to list the application.The application for recall of the order was mentioned today by advocate Prashant Bhushan before Justice AK Sikri who agreed to list the same.