Cognizable Offences Under Section 192-A Karnataka Land Revenue Act Do Not Require Preliminary Enquiry: High Court Holds Government Notification Cannot Override Statute

"Where a statute prescribes the authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive cannot, by administrative instruction, circular, or notification, confer such power upon an authority not contemplated by the statute." High Court of Karnataka, in a significant ruling, held that criminal proceedings initiated under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (the Act), do not require a mandatory preliminary enquiry or the issuance of a show-cause notice by revenue authorities.

A bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh observed that the offence under Section 192-A is explicitly classified as a cognizable offence under Section 192-D of the Act, thereby mandating the police to register an FIR upon receiving a complaint of encroachment.

The petitioners, a landowner and a developer, sought to quash an FIR registered against them for the alleged encroachment of three guntas of 'karab' (government) land and a public pathway in Bengaluru. The petitioners argued that the police acted prematurely without conducting a preliminary enquiry or providing them an opportunity to respond, relying on a 2008 Government notification and previous coordinate bench rulings which suggested such a procedure was mandatory before initiating criminal prosecution for land encroachment.

The primary question before the court was whether the statutory provisions of Section 192-A of the Act are subject to executive notifications that mandate a preliminary enquiry before the registration of an FIR. The court was also tasked with determining whether the failure to follow such administrative instructions renders a criminal investigation for a cognizable offence under Section 192-D of the Act legally unsustainable.

Statute Prevails Over Executive Instructions

The Court emphatically clarified that while earlier judgments, such as Smt. Lalitha Sastry v. State of Karnataka, relied upon a 2008 government notification to suggest that an opportunity of being heard must be provided to alleged encroachers, this notification cannot supersede the parent legislation. The Court underscored that administrative instructions cannot whittle down the effect of a statute.

"It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute prescribes the authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive cannot, by administrative instruction, circular, or notification, confer such power upon an authority not contemplated by the statute."

Mandatory Registration of Cognizable Offences

The bench pointed out a crucial oversight in previous coordinate bench decisions: the existence of Section 192-D of the Act, which explicitly categorizes offences under this Chapter as "cognizable." Applying the landmark ratio of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., the court held that once a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer has no discretion but to register the FIR.

"When the offence is cognizable, it is mandatory on the part of the Investigating Officer when the complaint is received to take note that whether the offence is cognizable or not. If offence is cognizable, it is mandatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to register the case and proceed in accordance with law."

Scope of Section 482 CrPC

The Court further noted that the investigation into land encroachment is a factual process that lies within the domain of the police. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, the bench refused to truncate the investigative process. It observed that the petitioners have every opportunity to produce their documents (such as survey sketches and sale deeds) before the Investigating Officer.

"During the course of investigation, if no such encroachment is found and if he substantiate the same, the result would be different such as instead of filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer may file B-report. If such encroachment is found, may file A-report and the Court will look into the material before proceeding."

The Court concluded that the investigating agency must be allowed to unearth the truth. Consequently, the petition seeking to quash the FIR was dismissed, reaffirming that statutory mandates regarding cognizable offences cannot be bypassed by reliance on circulars that lack legislative sanction.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026