The single‑judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna considered a petition filed by Chowda Reddy seeking to quash the First Information Report registered by the Lokayukta in 2017. The FIR alleges that Chowda Reddy, while serving as a legislator, together with the then municipal commissioner, encroached upon government land classified as ‘B Kharab’ under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1964. The bench observed that the allegations disclose a cognisable offence and therefore the investigation cannot be halted at this preliminary stage.

Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that land grabbing by private individuals is a serious illegality, but when those clothed with political power are implicated the impact extends beyond the legal violation. The court stated that such conduct erodes public faith in governance because custodians of public trust become beneficiaries of alleged public wrongs. The bench added that to interdict investigation at this juncture would amount to shutting the door on truth before it has entered the room, and therefore investigation is not merely warranted but indispensable.

The court further noted that the material placed before it shows prima facie that the sons of the former minister, M.C. Sudhakar and M.C. Balaji, were direct beneficiaries of the alleged land transaction. Despite this, neither of them appears as an accused in the FIR. The bench expressed concern over how beneficiaries of allegedly grabbed government land remain outside the dragnet of criminal proceedings. It asked the Lokayukta to explain why no action has been initiated against the two individuals, while clarifying that, at the investigative stage, the court is not expected to weigh evidence with the precision of a trial.

Regarding the nature of the land in question, the bench referred to the Lokayukta’s findings that the parcel in Survey No.11 of Kannampalli village, Chintamani Taluk, measures one acre nineteen guntas and is classified as ‘B Kharab’ land, which is government property reserved for specified public purposes. The court reiterated that such land cannot be transformed into a private commodity merely because power, influence or administrative silence facilitated the change. It stressed that even a single gunta of government plot cannot be appropriated by private citizens.

The Lokayukta’s investigation revealed that thirty‑seven sites were carved out of the government land after the alleged encroachment. Following a family partition, each of the two sons reportedly received seven sites from the Kharab parcel. The court observed that the conclusion is not difficult to draw: government land appears to have been treated as though it were ancestral property, partitioned among family members and dealt with as a commodity of private ownership. What could not legally be owned appears to have been privately divided; what could never be alienated appears to have been bartered within the family.

Further, the Lokayukta reported that many of these sites were subsequently sold to the Government Employees House Building Cooperative Society through an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The court noted that this created third‑party interest and resulted in the government land being concealed beneath concrete and private possession.

In disposing of the petition, the bench held that the allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognisable offence and therefore the investigation must proceed. It refused to entertain the argument that the proceedings are politically motivated, stating that the court cannot permit investigation to be throttled at inception in a matter of such gravity. The order thus allows the Lokayukta to continue its inquiry while directing the authority to consider the position of the minister’s sons in light of the prima facie material.