Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 130
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.
Headnote:KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 - Section 136(3) :[N.Kumar,J] Power of the Deputy Commissioner - Proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the recommendation made by the Lokayukta for cancellation of the Revenue Records in respect of the lands belong to the petitioner’s father -Propriety - Held, It is a proceedings initiated on the report of the Lokayukta on a request made from his office to initiate proceedings coupled with the request of the Director of Land Records to initiate proceedings as the Lokayukta has already declared that the property in dispute does not belong to the petitioner’s father. The power of the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 136 (3) suo motu cannot be disputed. But, it must be a proceeding initiated by him on being satisfied that there is a need to initiate such proceedings. In the instant case the Deputy Commissioner who initiated proceedings, is a witness in the investigation conducted by the Lokayukta. Before the Lokayukta he has given evidence stating all that has been done is in accordance with law. The said statement has been accepted by the Lokayukta and, therefore, the government officials have been exonerated. It is thereafter, the very same witness initiate proceedings at the behest of the Lokayukta on the basis of his report. A person cannot be a witness, a prosecutor, a Judge in the same case. The entire proceedings initiated cannot stand the judicial scrutiny and is liable to be quashed.
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 - Section 136(3) :[N.Kumar,J] Power of the Deputy Commissioner - Proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the recommendation made by the Lokayukta for cancellation of the Revenue Records in respect of the lands belong to the petitioner’s father -Propriety - Held, It is a proceedings initiated on the report of the Lokayukta on a request made from his office to initiate proceedings coupled with the request of the Director of Land Records to initiate proceedings as the Lokayukta has already declared that the property in dispute does not belong to the petitioner’s father. The power of the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 136 (3) suo motu cannot be disputed. But, it must be a proceeding initiated by him on being satisfied that there is a need to initiate such proceedings. In the instant case the Deputy Commissioner who initiated proceedings, is a witness in the investigation conducted by the Lokayukta. Before the Lokayukta he has given evidence stating all that has been done is in accordance with law. The said statement has been accepted by the Lokayukta and, therefore, the government officials have been exonerated. It is thereafter, the very same witness initiate proceedings at the behest of the Lokayukta on the basis of his report. A person cannot be a witness, a prosecutor, a Judge in the same case. The entire proceedings initiated cannot stand the judicial scrutiny and is liable to be quashed.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA ACT, 1984 - Section 7: [N. Kumar, J] Matters to be investigated by the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta - Jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to investigate and hold enquiry in respect of dispute regarding immovable property belonging to private citizens - Proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the Lokayukta report - Legality of - Held, The Lokayukta may investigate a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation in respect of any action which is taken by or with the general or special approval of a public servant enumerated in sub-Section (1) of Section 7. In respect of all other public servants not covered under sub-section (1) the Upa Lokayukta can make an investigation. The investigation to be conducted by the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokyukta is in respect of a complaint against a public servant only. The word ’public servant’ has been defined under the Act under Section 2(12). Therefore, the whole object of this Act is to provide for an investigation of a complaint in respect of a grievance or allegation in respect of an action by the public servant. The jurisdiction of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta do not extend beyond what is specifically contained in Section 7 of the Act. They have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a person other than a public servant as defined under the Act. The Lokayukta or an Upa-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. They are all mattes 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.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA ACT, 1984 - Sections 7 to 12: [N. Kumar, J] Jurisdiction, Investigation of any action involving an allegation and submission of the report - Condition precedent - Held, The condition precedent for submitting the said report is, only when the allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly against the public servants so that follow up action may be taken against them by the Government. If the allegation is not substantiated, there is no question of submitting a report. The Lokayukta has to drop the proceedings or terminate the proceedings. Further, A perusal of the complaint clearly disclosed that it is not a case of action or inaction of any public servant or action of an allegation or action of a grievance which calls for investigation by the Lokayukta. The complaint did not disclose any grievance or allegation calling for investigation and therefore the question of Lokayukta exercising the power under the Act did not arise. Under these circumstances, as provided under Section 9 (5), the Lokayukta ought to have refused to investigate. On facts held, It is unfortunate that a person of the stature of Lokayukta has not followed the fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner, his deceased father and deceased erstwhile Maharaja of of Mysore are condemned unheard. Uncharitable remarks are made against them, which is not in good taste. On the day he initiated proceedings and was passing the remarks neither the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore nor the petitioner’s father were alive. The remarks made by him against them are defamatory, and they affect their reputation. In the first place, the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to go into the title of the property which was involved in the complaint. Secondly, he has no jurisdiction to declare the registered sale deeds executed 50 years earlier as void ab initio. Lokayukta has overstepped his limits and it is a clear case of abuse of power.
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 authorit
