Karnataka HC says Bengaluru land dispute where multiple people claim to be owner Radha cries out for police probe

Last year, on November 24, another judge of the Karnataka HC passed an interim order for a stay on investigations against Naidu on the grounds that the land dispute was civil in nature.

However, when the matter came up before the HC recently, a single-judge bench ruled that the case is fit for a criminal investigation. “To interdict such investigation at the threshold would be to prematurely close the doors of criminal justice and to permit serious allegations of fraud to go unanswered,” Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled on January 20.

The HC has pointed out that the case is not confined to rival claims over land titles but “traverse far deeper, into the realm of deceit, impersonation, forgery and calculated fraud”.

“The complaint narrates how the absence of the true owner was exploited, how family identities were fabricated and how public offices were allegedly misled through forged appearances and signatures,” the HC bench noted in its order.

“The pendency of civil suits cannot, and ought not to impede investigation of grave and cognisable offences alleged in the complaint,” the HC ruled while dissolving the earlier stay on investigations against Venkata Rama Naidu Kola.

Among the people accused in the case is Ashwin Sancheti, the executive of a prominent real estate firm, the Sattva Group, who had entered into a joint development agreement with the children of one of the women who identified as the original land owner, Radha.

Last year, on December 11, another bench of the Karnataka HC allowed criminal investigations to proceeds in the land dispute case after the executive of the real estate firm sought the quashing of the FIR registered on October 22, 2025, by the Bengaluru police.

On February 2, 2026, when the Sancheti plea came up again, the HC was informed by a special public prosecutor (SPP) that investigations were still underway. The SPP submitted that the petitioners, complainants, as well as several other people, were being investigated.

“He also submits that care will be taken in respect of the documents that will be examined by the Investigating Agency and the same will be done in a transparent manner,” the HC noted following the February 2 proceedings.

12-acre open property unofficially valued at over Rs 100 crore

The property dispute pertains to the ownership of a 12-acre open property unofficially valued at over Rs 100 crore in the Bandapura village on the eastern fringe of the city, where four people have claimed to be the inheritor, Radha, wife of the original owner, S Krishnan, who died in 1986.

The Bengaluru police registered an FIR in the dispute over a property located at Avalahalli in east Bengaluru on October 22, 2025, after an elderly woman with the name Radha staked a claim to be the original owner and accused the director of a major realty firm in Bengaluru and others of using forged documents and impersonation to usurp the property.

The police case was challenged in the high court by Ashwin Sancheti, a director with the realty firm Sattva Resi Pvt Ltd who signed a joint development agreement worth over Rs 20 crore for the disputed property with the children of a woman named Radha, who claimed to have inherited the property. Sancheti was earlier arrested and released on bail.

“Since it is a vacant land worth over Rs 100 crore. Three groups of persons plead claim over this property by using forged documents,” the counsel for the Radha, who filed the police complaint against the real estate firm director and others, said during arguments last year.

“All these aspects came to our knowledge only in 2024. The question is, who is the original owner? Who is S Krishnan? Krishnan died, leaving behind his wife Radha. All the original title deeds for the purchase of the property by Krishnan is with his wife Radha, the de facto complainant. The question is of the identity of the owner and his wife, Radha,” it was argued.

The case “concerns a serious criminal investigation into various people who claim they are the original Smt. Radha, wife of late S. Krishnan,” the SPP said in the HC.

The case involves alleged forgery of a gift deed in the name of Radha, who died before the date of the deed; a gift deed by another Radha R to her children, who signed the joint development deal with Sattva; and a third woman named Radha with a daughter, apart from the woman who filed a police complaint claiming to be childless and only wife of Krishnan.

The FIR in the case details multiple impersonation chains involving different groups. It also refers to multiple fraudulent sale deeds registered for the properties in question.

According to the police complaint filed by the 65-year-old woman, identified as Radha, through a general power of attorney, she is the absolute owner of the land in Bandapura, and was shocked when she went to inspect her property recently and found that someone else was in possession and that its nature had been changed.

According to the police complaint, the land was purchased by her husband Krishnan with a registered sale deed dated October 6, 1978, which is in her possession, and her husband died on May 29, 1986. After her husband’s death, her name was reportedly entered in the revenue records since she did not have children, and she was in possession of the land.

“These three groups of accused persons, with the intention of making illegal profits, have fabricated documents and registered claims on the property as their own. They have illegally entered my property and are posing a threat. They have not only cheated me but also the courts,” says the complaint filed in October by Radha, who claims to be the absolute owner.

Sattva Group has denied any involvement by its executive or the firm in any illegalities.

“Sattva Group clarifies that it entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated August 14, 2023 with Smt. R. Radha and her four children, the legal heirs of the late Shri S. Krishnan for the development of a 12 acres 30.5 guntas land parcel in Bandapura village and the involvement of the Sattva Group in the project is strictly limited to the terms outlined in the agreement,” the company stated in November 2025 after the case emerged.