Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 128
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
M.A. Parthasarathy
Versus
The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District & Others
Writ Petition No. 491 of 2007
Decided on : 17-02-2009
For the Petitioner:Amar Kumar, M/s. Lawyers INC, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, Narendra Prasad, GP, R2 & R3, Venkata Reddy, Advocate.
The Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation against a private individual.
Headnote:
LOKAYUKTA - JURISDICTION - INVESTIGATION - COMPLAINT - ACTION - GRIEVANCE - ALLEGATION - MALADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC SERVANT - REPORT - SUBMISSION - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - TITLE OF PROPERTY - INVESTIGATION - JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - REPUTATION - RIGHT TO - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ABUSE OF POWER - MALA FIDES - PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT - INITIATION - BASIS - WITNESS - PROSECUTOR - JUDGE - SAME CASE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the report submitted by the Karnataka Lokayukta as per Annexure-F and a notice under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. The Lokayukta, after service of summons, entered appearance and filed a detailed counter. The petitioner assailed the report and the notice contending that the statement of objections coupled with the report submitted by the Lokayukta makes it abundantly clear that he has recorded a finding of fact holding the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had no title to the property in question and therefore, he could not have conveyed title to the petitioner's father. The petitioner's father acquired no title to the property and all of them are encroachers of the land in question. The Lokayukta under the Act has no jurisdiction to go into the question of a title dispute in respect of the immovable property belonging to private citizens of this Country. He had no jurisdiction to tarnish the fair name of persons who were not before him under the guise of holding an enquiry against public servants. When all the officials were exonerated, he had no jurisdiction to submit any report to the Government for any follow-up action. Therefore, the Lokayukta has over-stepped its jurisdiction in recording such findings. From the material on record, it is clear that it is on the basis of the report of the Lokayukta, the proceedings are initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under Sec.1 36(3) of the Land Revenue Act which is wholly without jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner who initiated the proceedings was a witness in the enquiry conducted by the Lokayukta and a witness in an enquiry cannot be a Prosecutor and Judge under another enactment to decide the rights of the petitioner. All these findings are recorded behind the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. As is clear from the statement of objections, it is the stand of the Lokayukta that petitioner need not be heard, as he is not a public servant. Therefore, he submits as the findings recorded, observations made in the report, if allowed to stand would seriously dent the reputation of the petitioner's father and the petitioner, the said observations and finding recorded are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation against a private individual. He has not been conferred any power to investigate into the title of the property standing in the name of a private individual. He has not been conferred any power to go into the validity of a sale deed, a Will, a gift deed executed by a private individual in favour of another private individual, on the ground that the said subject matter of the alienation is a public property. They are all matters exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Lokayukta cannot usurp the power of civil Court under the guise of investigation under the Act. The investigation to be conducted is only with reference to the action of the public servant, and the abuse of such office, allegations of corruption, nepotism, lack of integrity on the part of public servant, and any illegal gains made by such public servant. The Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to go into the title of the property, the nature of the property standing in the name of private individuals since long time. The transfer deeds which are duly registered and acted upon for decades cannot be the subject matter of an investigation by the Lokayukta or Upa lokayukta under the guise of an investigation under Section 7 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Lokayukta under the Act has the jurisdiction to investigate and hold an enquiry in respect of dispute regarding immovable property belonging to private citizens? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner is on the basis of Lokayukta report and therefore is vitiated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation against a private individual. He has not been conferred any power to investigate into the title of the property standing in the name of a private individual. He has not been conferred any power to go into the validity of a sale deed, a Will, a gift deed executed by a private individual in favour of another private individual, on the ground that the said subject matter of the alienation is a public property. They are all matters exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Lokayukta cannot usurp the power of civil Court under the guise of investigation under the Act. The investigation to be conducted is only with reference to the action of the public servant, and the abuse of such office, allegations of corruption, nepotism, lack of integrity on the part of public servant, and any illegal gains made by such public servant. 2. The proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner is on the basis of Lokayukta report and therefore is vitiated.
Final Decision: Writ Petition is allowed. All the observations, discussions and findings in the report to the effect that the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had no title to the property in dispute, he had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner’s father, petitioner’s father did not acquire any title under the two sale deeds, petitioner's father fraudulently obtained the sale deeds from the Personal Secretary of the erstwhile Maharaja, that the petitioner’s father concocted the documents, fabricated the documents and petitioner and his other family members did not have title either under the sale deed or under the Will and this property is a Government property, and all the findings recorded in respect of the title to the property as well as the extracts al Para 17 set out above are hereby expunged and consequently quashed. Similarly, all defamatory and disp araging remarks made against the petitioner; his late father, and erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore are hereby expunged. The direction issued in para 16 of the impugned report is also quashed. Notice issued as per Annexure-G is hereby quashed. No costs.
Kumar, J.
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a declaration that, the report submitted by the Karnataka Lokayukta as per Annexure-F is void, nonest and has no probative value and for quashing Annexure- G i.e., a notice under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the property bearing No.1, 12th Cross, Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Sadashivnagar, Bangalore – 560080, which is a part of 10 acres 28 guntas of land which has been purchased by the petitioner's father late M A Srinivasan from the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore in the year 1953-54 has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his family members for the last over 52 years uninterruptedly. Petitioner's fanner late M A Srinivasan, died in the year 1998 at his ripe old age of 101. He was the Pradhan of the erstwhile State of Mysore, the Diwan of the erstwhile State of Gwalior, a member of the Constituent Assembly, a Chairman of the Kolar Gold Fields, the founder-president of the GMCI, a Chairman of the Consolidated Coffee Limited and the founder-director of the Air India International Limited. He was such a towering personality of quite a high public-profile and reputation, holding such high offices and positions. After his demise, the former Lokayukta has been pouring on him, as also on the petitioner, as avalanche of indignant accusations, vituperative references and boisterous-statements, touching on the high-profile, integrity and the reputation of his father, the deceased M A Srinivasan and on him.
3. The petitioner was a Chairman of the Urban Arts Commission, a Member of Lalbagh Trust, a Member of the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, a Member of the U N University, Tokyo, Japan, a trustee of the World-wide Foundation Nature in India and a recipient of the Global 500 Award. He has been residing in the property in question. In fact, petitioner and his father had to fife several writ petitions before this Court making Lokayukta a party to those proceedings seeking protection to protect their property. In fact, in the writ petition No.2199/2005 preferred by the petitioner against Lokayukta the Commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagara palike and the Commissioner of Police after hearing all the parties, this Court passed an order on 16.6.2005 directing the second respondent officials not to enter upon the petitioners property (beyond the fenced area of Sankey Tank). It was also made clear if, really there is a dispute in regard to the extent or otherwise, the parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law. In the writ petition, they have set-out in detail several writ petitions filed and the prayers made by them.
4. One V.S. Ramamurty and G.V. Muniraju filed a complaint before the Lokayukta on 4.6.2005 in the prescribed form against the Government of Karnataka, Forest Department, The Principal Secretary, the Government Industries and Commerce, the Commissioner of the Bangalore Mahanagarapalike, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District and the Secretary, Environment and Ecology, Bangalore complaining that the petitioner and his family members have encroached upon a part of Sankey Tank and thus have misused public property and therefore the Lokayukta should take action on the officials who are responsible for this injustice. The petitioner nor his father was made a-party to the said complaint. The Lokayukta held an enquiry and submitted a report on 17.10.2005 produced at Annexure-F. He exonerated all the Government officials. However, he has recorded findings against the petitioner, his father in respect of their title to the property in dispute. The petitioner and his father are defamed, without any justification and behind their back. He has alleged legal malafides against the Lokayukta. In the said report, a direction is issued to the authoriti
