Site news

THE “HEBBAGODI POLICE” “REFUSED” TO HELP DALIT NAGAPPA BIN CHINNAPPA DESPITE HIS COMPLIANT ON SC/ST “ATROCITIES”

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
THE “HEBBAGODI POLICE” “REFUSED” TO HELP DALIT NAGAPPA BIN CHINNAPPA DESPITE HIS COMPLIANT ON SC/ST “ATROCITIES”
by System Administrator - Wednesday, 19 October 2016, 4:22 PM
 

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore : Hebbagodi [police need to stop construction and save ST ST Properties as as per Hon'ble Karnataka high court has ratified OS 2688/06 Dated 18-01-2011 in which IA 5 which is about "Grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant or anybody on their behalf from putting up construction or creating any third party interest in respect of Suite Schedule Properties”is allowed inIA 5 court order 2688/06Dated 18-01-2011. Suite Schedule Properties”includesSurveyNumbers 30/7 (0.05 Guntas) and88/6 (1 Acres 08 Guntas) and 89/1 (2 Acres 13 Guntas)and 108/8(0-05Guntas ) and 109/4 (0-12 Guntas) and and 108/10 (4 Acres -29 Guntas )and 30/9 (0-06 Guntas )and 78/6 (0-18 Guntasand 78/4(0-14 Guntas(Totaling 9 Acres 30 guntas) of Maragondanhalli Village Jigani HobliAnekal Taluka Bangalore Urban District.

Hebbagodi police did not book FIR despite complaint and court stay orders. . SC/ST person Nagappa S/OLate chinnappa Resident of Maragondanhalli Village Jigani HobliAnekal Taluka Bangalore Urban District visited Hebbagodi police station several times and gavewritten and oral complaints and even on 21-03-2016 refused to acknowledge the complaint. Hebbagodi police station and its officers are reportedly mute spectators and not protecting constitutional rights of SC/ST persons allowed construction in survey number 108/10 (4 Acres -29 Guntas by Putappa and Mubarak and others about 42 persons despite Hon'ble Karnataka high court has ratified the stay order of OS 2688/06 Dated 18-01-2011 "Grantedtemporary injunction restraining the defendant or anybody on their behalf from putting up construction or creating any third party interest in respect of Suite Schedule Properties” .And as these properties belong to SC/ST and attracts Section 3 (1) (iv) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as follows (iv) Wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred; Andunder Section 3 (1) (v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as follows (v)Wrongfully dispossesses a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his right over any land, premises or water;Hon'ble Karnataka high court has ratified OS 2688/06 Dated 18-01-2011 in which IA 5 which is about "Grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant or anybody on their behalf from putting up construction or creating any third party interest in respect of Suite Schedule Properties”is allowed inIA 5 court order 2688/06Dated 18-01-2011. Suite Schedule Properties”includesSurveyNumbers 30/7 (0.05 Guntas) and88/6 (1 Acres 08 Guntas) and 89/1 (2 Acres 13 Guntas)and 108/8(0-05Guntas ) and 109/4 (0-12 Guntas) and and 108/10 (4 Acres -29 Guntas )and 30/9 (0-06 Guntas )and 78/6 (0-18 Guntasand 78/4(0-14 Guntas(Totaling 9 Acres 30 guntas) of Maragondanhalli Village Jigani HobliAnekal Taluka Bangalore Urban District re-granted in favor of Muniyellaga by special deputy commissioner for Inam Abolition on 19-02-1959.Despite Hon'ble Karnataka high court has ratified OS 2688/06 Dated 18-01-2011 and these are lands owned by SC/ST persons few people like Puttappa and one Mubarak and other people have started constructing compound wall and buildings and few other people are grabbing these SC/ST lands under fake documents using muscle power using gunda and un-lawful elements using filthy language and abusing them SC/ST owners intimidating and threatening to dispossess SC/ST from their legitimate family properties and forcing them to leave these properties and vacate the village are committing atrocities on SC/ST land owners . Hebbagodi police station and its officers and Thasildar are requested to immediately stop the illegal construction and provide security to SC/ST persons.

Facts of the case: It is the case of four independent families with their independent properties and assets. Family tree of four independent HUF clearly shows the following facts.. Abbaiah@chikka abbaiah s/o Yerrappa their sons and grand sons .Muniyellaga @ chinnappa @ chnnoniga s/o Yerrappasons and grand sons.Ramaiah s/o Yerrappa sons and grand sons .Muniramaiahs/o Muniyellaga @ chinnappa @ chnnoniga but adopted by Nanjappa under registered documents with independent properties and present legal heir is Nagappa s/oMuniramaiah and Pillamma .

Fraud and criminal conspiracy committed Family 1 and 3 and 4 their sons and grandsons as they have sold without any authority and title few propertiesbelonging to family -2 Muniyellaga @ chinnappa @ chnnoniga s/o Yerrappasons and grandsons and few of them are listed as defendants in the case and court is asked to declare all these sale deeds numbering about 42 to be not binding on family ofMuniyellaga @ chinnappa @ chnnoniga s/o Yerrappasons and grand sons.We request police to file criminal cases on Family 1 and 3 and 4 as they have committed fraud under section 420 read with othersection of IPC.In the present case the complainant has been filed under section 120B (Criminal conspiracy ) ,420 (cheating) 468(forgery) 471(using forged documents as genuine one) and 448 (trespassing in our property) fabricated papers to get RTC mutations in thasildars office by fraud and forgery and tress pass in theirgrand fathers property as these people are un-connected to theirfamily of Late Thoti Muniyallaga and his sons and his grandsons and his great grandsonsand under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as follows. " (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.The basic ingredients of the offence under clause 10 of sub section (1) of section 3 of the S.C / ST Act are : "(i) that there must be an "intentional insult" or "intimidation" or "intend" to humiliate SC/ST members by the non SC/ST members and be that the insult must have been done in any place within" public view".under Section 3 (1) (iv) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as follows (iv) Wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred; Andunder Section 3 (1) (v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as follows (v)Wrongfully dispossesses a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his right over any land, premises or water;

Earlier Complaint was filed by Nagappa S/OLate chinnappa Resident of Maragondanhalli Village Jigani HobliAnekal Taluka Bangalore Urban District inHebbagodi police station on 19-02-2015 against 1) Naryanappa s/o Ramaiah and 2) Venkatrmanappa s/o Ramiah and 3) Jitendar s/oVenkatramanappa and 4) Munireddys/o Muniyelllappa and 5) Ramesh s/o Munireddy and 6) parimuniyappa s/o Munyya 7) Papanna s/o Narayanappaand 8) Annyappa and 9) Nagappa S/O Muniramappa and others PapannaMobile Number 9066097467 / 9880425237and Annayyappa Mobile Number 9482432888 and policeare requested to book FIR under section 120B (Criminal conspiracy ) ,420 (cheating) 468(forgery) 471(using forged documents as genuine one) and 448 (trespassing in our property) fabricated papers to get RTC mutations in thasildars office by fraud and forgery and tress pass in theirgrand fathers property as these people are un-connected to theirfamily of Late Thoti Muniyallaga and his sons and his grandsons and his great grandsons .These people can get RTC and mutations of their grand fathers property which is re-granted under Inam abolition Act separately and not in complainantgrandfather property which was re-granted under Inam abolition Act separately . Their grandfather property and complainantgrandfather property are different and distinct and is under different government orders and both are different HUF.This complaint isin respect suite schedule property and trespassing in complainantgrand fathers property and creating third party interests in complainantgrandfather property despite the interimcourt order( restrains them of creating third party interest and restrains construction activity in our SSP) in 2688/06Dated 18-01-2011 (High Court Order in WP 6257/2012 (GM-CPC) Dated 23-08-2013in respect of SurveyNumbers 30/7 (0.05 Guntas) and88/6 (1 Acres 08 Guntas) and 89/1 (2 Acres 13 Guntas)and 108/8(0-05Guntas ) and 109/4 (0-12 Guntas) and 108/08 (0-05 Guntas )and 108/10 (4 Acres -29 Guntas )and 30/9 (0-06 Guntas )and 78/6 (0-18 Guntasand 78/4(0-14 Guntas(Totaling 9 Acres 30 guntas) of MaragondanhalliVillage Jigani HobliAnekal Taluka Bangalore Urban District. The property belonging to Thoti Muniyallaga and his sons and his grandsons and his great grandsons is knocked out by fraud and forgery and fabricating papers tress pass by some people un-connected to family. Property is still undivided still in the name of Thoti Muniyallaga and in the court for division of the property.

According to press reports the Karnataka government's dismal performance in securing convictions of those charged under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is a damning indictment of the failure of state functionaries to ensure justice to victims of caste violence. According to a report that examined implementation of the PoA Act, of the 1,633 cases booked under this legislation in Karnataka in 2014, not even one case ended in conviction; in 273 cases, the accused were acquitted and in 384 cases, B-reports were filed and police dropped the case on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The State's zero conviction rate under the PoA Act is reason for serious concern. It indicates that perpetrators of atrocities against SCs and STs are getting away without having to face punishment. The  Constitution prohibits the practice of untouchability in all its forms. In 1955, the Protection of Civil Rights Act was enacted to protect the fundamental and socio-economic, political, and cultural rights of SCs and STs. Still, violence and humiliation continued to be heaped on them. It was in this context that the government enacted the stringent PoA Act in 1989. Under it, the violence perpetrated by non-SC/STs against SC/STs is not just a crime, it is an atrocity. It provides for special courts to ensure speedy trial and stringent punishment to those convicted in the hope that it would deter such atrocities in future. However, the enactment of the PoA has not prevented atrocities against SC/STs; instead, they have only increased in frequency and ferocity.The PoA is not being imple-mented. Often, the police connive with perpetrators to destroy evidence and intimidate the victims into withdrawing the case. SC/ST activists point out that police are often unwilling to file a case under the PoA Act and instead pressure SC/ST victims to file a case under the more lenient Indian Penal Code, which among other things allows bail to the accused. Out on bail, the accused often file 'counter cases' against SC/STs so that a 'compromise' settlement can be reached.Karnataka has the dubious distinction of standing third in the country in terms of the number of atrocity cases registered in 2014. It tops the county with regard to the rate of atrocities which is the number of atrocity cases per 100,000 population of SC/ST in the state. It can change this by diligently implementing the PoA Act. Civil society must strengthen the hands of SC/ST organisations in their fight for justice.