IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.1898/2014(LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN :
T.P.Muninarayanappa,
S/o.Puttanna,
Age: 61 years,
Occ: retired Govt. Servant,
R/o.No.207, 1st Main,
Kasturinagar,
Bangalore – 560 001.
(By Sri.Mahesh R.Uppin, Adv.)
AND :
1.
State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore – 560 001.
2.
The Special Land
Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
No.3/2, 1st Cross, 3rd Floor,
Thimmaiah Tower,
...PETITIONER
-2-
Gandhinagar,
Opposite to Kamath Yathinivas,
Bangalore – 560 009.
3.
A.Rajanna,
S/o.late M.Anjanappa,
Age : 74 years,
4.
R.Devendra,
S/o.A.Rajanna,
Age: 43 years,
5.
R.Chandranna,
S/o.A.Rajanna,
Age: 39 years,
6.
R.Prabhakar,
S/o.A.Rajanna,
Age: 29 years,
7.
R.Chethankumar,
S/o.A.Rajanna,
Age: 24 years,
Respondents 3 to 7 are
R/o. No.11973,
Kanakadasa Road,
Veerabhadranapalya,
Doddaballapur Town,
Doddaballapura-561 203
Bangalore Rural District.
8.
Smt.Sushella @
Susheelamma,
D/o.Chandramma,
Age: major,
R/o.C/o.K.Rajanna,
No.11, Venkateshwara
Nilaya, 10th Cross,
-3-
Near Manjunatha Tent,
Sanjeeveni Nagar,
Moodalapalya,
Bangalore – 560 072.
9.
Sri.Srinivasa,
S/o.Shamanna,
Age: major,
R/o. C/o.K.Rajanna,
No.11, Venkateshwara
Nilaya, 10th Cross,
Near Manjunatha Tent,
Sanjeeveni Nagar,
Moodalapalya,
Bangalore – 560 072.
10.
Smt.Sharadamma,
W/o.V.Ravichandra,
Age: Major,
R/o.C/o.Ravinchandra,
No.222, 1st Cross,
Manjunatha Extension,
Nagashettihalli,
Bangalore – 560 094.
11.
Smt.Kalyana Kumari,
W/o.Sudhakar,
Age: Major,
R/o.Kanteerava Nagara,
Dasarahalli,
Bangalore – 560 001.
12.
Sri.B.N.Devaraju,
S/o.late Nagappa Shetti,
Major, R/o.No.327,
1st Block, R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 032.
13.
Additional Registrar Enquiry-01,
Karnataka Lokayuktha,
-4-
M.S.Building,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.A.Nagarajappa, Adv. for R3 to R7)
Sri.Rajanna, Adv. for R110 & R11)
. . . .
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
the proceedings initiated by the Hon’ble Lokayuktha
pursuant to the notice dated 19.06.2013 issued by the
Hon’ble
Lokayuktha
in
case
bearing
No.SAM.KAM.LOK.BCD:316/2012 vide Annexure `M’
and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed in the following
background:
The petitioner is said to have been working as a
Special Land Acquisition Officer in the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore.
He
claims to have discharged his duties sincerely with
utmost integrity and to the satisfaction of his higherups and the general public. He is said to have retired
from service on 16.10.2009. It transpired that during
-5-
his service, land in Sy. No.74/304 measuring 4 acres of
Bandikodigehalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore
District was gomal land. On 12.04.1961, the said land
was said to have been granted in favour of one
M.Anjanappa, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste with
a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years.
Anjanappa, it transpires had sold the land, in violation
of the conditions of the grant under a registered sale
deed dated 23.01.1968. Anjanappa died leaving behind
his son A.Rajanna, respondent No.3 as his surviving
legal representative. Respondents 4 to 7 are the sons of
respondent No.3.
The Assistant Commissioner is said
to have initiated proceedings under the Karnataka
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, in view of the
conditions having been violated by Anjanappa. In the
said proceedings, respondents 3 to 7 were made parties.
The
Assistant
Commissioner,
by
an
order
dated
08.11.2004 declared the sale made by Anjanappa in
favour of respondent No.12 as null and void and
-6-
ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in
favour of the legal representatives of the grantee namely
respondents 3 to 7.
Their names were subsequently
entered in the Record of Rights and the name of
respondent 12 stood deleted.
Thereafter, the State
Government sought to develop an Industrial Area i.e.,
`Hardware Park’ near the International Airport at
Devenahalli and issued a preliminary notification dated
03.11.2006 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Act (for short `the KIAD
Act’) to acquire an extent of 450.05 acres of land
including the land bearing Sy.No.74/304 measuring 4
acres.
2. The notice of acquisition is said to have been
served on respondents 3 to 7 and 12.
filed any objection.
They have not
They did not participate in the
enquiry pursuant to those proceedings.
The Special
Land Acquisition Officer is said to have submitted his
report after holding an enquiry. A final notification
under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued.
The
-7-
said notification attained finality as there was no
challenge to the same. But after publication of the final
notification, respondent No.12 made a representation
seeking withdrawal of the acquisition insofar as the said
land is concerned.
The representation was rejected.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer had issued a notice
under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act to interested
parties. Respondents 3 to 7 had made representation
for grant of compensation in respect of the acquisition of
the said land. They had furnished a letter of consent for
payment of compensation in favour of respondent No.4.
The petitioner, as the Special Land Acquisition Officer
verified the documents produced by the respondents
which were as follows:
a. RTC for 12 years,
b. Certified copy of Mutation exract,
c. RR & IL
d. Genealogical tree,
e. No due certificate to Government.
f. Certificate
that
no
application
under
Section 48A was filed before the Land
Tribunal.
-8-
g. No due certificate issued by the Primary
Cooperative
Agriculture
and
Rural
Development Bank.
h. No due certificate issued by Agriculture
Co-operative Society,
i. Encumbarance Certificate for 30 years
issued by the Sub-Registrar in Form
No.15,
j. Certificate of land holding issued by
Tahsildar,
k. The
order
passed
Commissioner
in
by
the
Assistant
SC/ST
Case
No.KSCST6/03-04.
l. No
due
certificate
issued
by
the
jurisdictional Bank,
m. Petition
submitted
by
A.Rajanna,
Chandranna and R.Chetan Kumar to pay
compensation amount to R.Devendra.
3. It is thereafter that the petitioner having formed
an opinion that the land in question was originally
allotted to Anjanappa and the same was sold in
violation of the conditions of grant in favour of
respondent No.12 and the Assistant Commissioner in
appropriate proceedings having declared the same to be
-9-
null and void, has ordered the same for resumption and
restoration
Accordingly,
etc.
and
disburse
a
cheque
was
the
issued
compensation.
in
favour
of
respondents 3 to 7. One year after the disbursement,
respondent No.12 is said to have obtained copies of the
documents pertaining to the above proceedings and has
challenged the same in a writ petition before this Court
in W.P. No.25202/2009.
Insofar as disbursement of
compensation in favour of respondents 4 to 7 is
concerned, it was alleged there is that the order of the
Assistant Commissioner passed for resumption and
restoration was set-aside in an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner and now the matter stood remanded to
the
Assistant Commissioner.
The petitioner was
impleaded as a respondent to the said writ petition. The
petitioner had filed his statement of objections and the
said writ petition is still pending. On the same set of
pleadings respondent No.12 had also filed a complaint
before the Lokayuktha, which is also said to be pending.
- 10 -
4.
In
the
meanwhile,
Smt.Susheelamma,
Sri.Srinivas, Smt.Sharadamma and Sri.Kalyan Kumar
have submitted their objections to respondent No.2
claiming that they are the legal heirs of original grantee
Anjanappa and that their suit for partition is pending
between them as legal representatives of Anjanappa i.e.,
respondents 3 to 7 and that there is also an order of
temporary injunction in the said suit and on these
grounds they had sought for recovery of compensation
amount from the hands of respondent No.4.
Neither
respondents 3 to 7 nor the objectors had brought these
facts to notice of the petitioner at the time when he
passed the order for disbursement of compensation.
The
2nd
respondent
having
issued
the
notice
to
respondents 4 and others by calling upon them to
appear before him with necessary documents and there
having been a notice to respondent No.4 to re-deposit
the compensation amount received by him.
5. Respondents 3 to 7 have challenged the said
notice in a writ petition before this Court in W.P.
- 11 -
No.13994/2010.
In the writ petition, the office had
raised several objections at the time of scrutiny.
The
matter was listed before the Court for non-compliance of
objections on 19.10.2010. On that day, when the case
was called out, the Counsel for the petitioner also
remained absent.
The said petition was dismissed
holding that there is no illegality in the notice issued by
the 2nd respondent.
However, this Court made some
general remarks on the functioning of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer and there was a further order for
conducting of investigation by the Lokayuktha against
the petitioner, who was the Special Land Acquisition
Officer during the relevant period and directed the
Registrar of this Court to place the matter before the
Lokayuktha.
Pursuant to the said order, Lokayuktha
has issued a notice on 19.06.2013 calling upon the
petitioner to submit his version. The petitioner claims
that this Court had passed the order without issuing
notice to him and hearing the petitioner and that too at
the stage of non-compliance of office objections.
The
- 12 -
petitioner claims that he was unaware of the order and
he only came to know about the same when he received
notice
from
the
Lokayuktha
on
19.06.2013.
The
petitioners had no papers pertaining to the case and it
took some time to collect the relevant documents to
seek legal recourse and it is only now that the petitioner
has been able to approach this Court.
It is in this
background that the present petition is filed.
6. That the office objections having been raised on
maintainability of the petition, the learned counsel has
placed reliance on the decision in case of Shivdeo
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 and this bench having
observed that the petition was indeed maintainable
applying the dictum of the Apex Court to the effect that
there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to
preclude a High Court from exercising the power of
review,
which
inheres
in
every
court
of
plenary
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors committed by it and
- 13 -
that in entertaining the petition the High Court did what
the Principles of Natural Justice required it to do and of
course applying the said dictum, the present petition
was also maintainable and the matter was directed to be
listed before the Judge from whom the earlier order was
passed and the Judge has since retired, the matter was
placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
The Chief
Justice in his wisdom has listed the matter before this
Bench.
7. In view of the apparent circumstances that the
petitioner was never issued a notice nor heard before
adverse
remarks
were
made
against
him
and
investigation was ordered to be conducted by the
Lokayuktha
and
those
proceedings
having
been
initiated, it is not fair and would result in a grave
miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, the adverse
remarks against the petitioner are withdrawn and the
further order directing the Registrar General to place a
copy of the order before the Karnataka Lokayuktha for
further enquiry into the manner of disbursement of
- 14 -
compensation amount by the petitioner in favour of
petitioners 3 to 7 and further directions issued to the
Lokayuktha as well as the Registrar General stands
withdrawn and the proceedings initiated thereafter
against the petitioner stand quashed.
8.
The
petitioner
however,
would
have
to
participate in the pending proceedings and hence, the
present petition is directed to be listed along with W.P.
No.25202/2009, to have his say in those proceedings,
to absolve himself.
The Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
SPS