Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 955
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
A. Rajanna & Others
Versus
State Of Karnataka & Others
Writ Petition No. 13994 of 2010 (LA-KIADB)
Decided On : 19-10-2010
For the Petitioners:Narasimha Raju, Chokka Reddy, Advocates – absent.
The judgment emphasizes the potential for corruption and malpractices in the administration of state lands under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and highlights the responsibility of the authorities to ensure professional competence and ethical conduct among legal practitioners.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Land Acquisition - Karnataka Land Revenue Act - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The court discussed the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the conduct of special land acquisition officers in disbursing compensation amounts. The court highlighted the potential for corruption and malpractices in the administration of state lands and directed the Registrar General to forward the order to the Karnataka Lok Ayukta for further inquiry into the conduct of the officers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a notice requiring the refund of compensation for land acquisition due to a pending civil suit. The writ petition was presented with several defects, and the advocates for the petitioners failed to rectify the issues despite multiple opportunities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had suppressed the fact of a pending civil suit and had wrongly claimed and received the entire compensation amount. The court also criticized the conduct of the advocates representing the petitioners.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the notice for refund of compensation, the conduct of the advocates, and the pending civil suit affecting the land acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice for refund of compensation was valid and justifiable, considering the suppression of the pending civil suit. The court also directed further inquiry into the conduct of special land acquisition officers and the advocates representing the petitioners.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the Registrar General to forward the order to the Karnataka Lok Ayukta for further inquiry into the conduct of the special land acquisition officers. The court also directed the Karnataka Bar Council to take necessary action regarding the conduct of the advocates.
1. Petitioners are eight in number. While the first petitioner by name A Rajanna s/o late M Anjanappa, aged about 70 years, residing at No 1973, Karnakadasa Road, Veerabhadranapalya, Doddaballapur town, Doddaballapur -561 203, Bangalore rural district, the petitioners 2 to 5 are sons of first petitioner and have residence at the same address as of their father.
2. On behalf of the five petitioners, the second petitioner, on his own and on behalf of the other petitioners as general power of attorney holder, has approached this court seeking for the following relief:
MAIN PRAYER
a. to issue a Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Notice, dated: 12.03.2010, issued by the Respondents Nos. 02 and 03 in No. BANGALORE/SLAO/3378/2009-2010 as per “ANNEXURE – P”
b. to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case
INTERIM PRAYER
To pass an interim order of stay, staying the operation, effect and implementation of the impugned Notice, dated: 12.03.2010 bearing No. BANGALORE/SLAO/3378/2009-2010 at “ANNEXURE – P”
3. Under the impugned notice at Annexure-P dated 12-3-2010, issued by the second respondent, the board has called upon the second petitioner R Devendra to refund the amount of Rs.1,24,00,000, which had been collected by him from the respondent-board by way of compensation in respect of acquisition of land to an extent of 4 acres in Sy No 74/304, situated at Bandikodigehalli village, Jala hobli, Bangalore north taluk, for the reason that in respect of the subject land, there was a civil suit pending before the court of civil judge [senior division], Devenahalli in OS No 1259 of 2005 and though there was some interim order of stay passed by that court in the suit, staying the disbursement of compensation amount or restraining the petitioners from receiving the amount etc., the second petitioner, suppressing this fact, has wrongly claimed and received the entire compensation amount of Rs.1,2400,000 and therefore is bound to return the amount with interest within three days from the date of receipt of notice, falling which necessary action will be taken in accordance with law etc. It is this notice which is sought to be quashed in the writ petition.
4. Writ petition has been presented in a haphazard and defective manner by the learned counsel namely M/s Narasimha Raju and Chokka Reddy, Advocates, on behalf of the petitioners and have filed vakalath for them in this writ petition.
5. Writ petition was presented by the counsel in the registry on 21-4-2010 and as the petition contained several defects even for proper presentation, the scrutiny branch of the registry had noticed the following five defects:
1. Oath Commissioner’s seal to be filed & attested by advocate as true copy in all Annexures as per rule 6 of WP rules.
2. Age proof of petitioner-1 to be filed.
3. Typed copy of Annexure-B to be filed a per rule 2 of chapter XII of HC rules.
4. Page Nos. at index left blank.
5. Typed copies of Annexures to be marked.
6. The defects having been notified and even after expiry of six weeks from the date of such notification in the registry, the advocates for the petitioners having not made the petition presentable in accordance with the rules and procedure, the matter was listed before this court for orders regarding non-compliance with the office objections as on 27-7-2010. On that day, a learned judge of this court has granted a week’s time for doing needful. With the advocate for the petitioner not complying thereafter also, the matter was again listed on 12-8-2020 and it is not known whether the counsel appearing for the petitioners was present before the court or not, nevertheless, this court granted two more week’s time for compliance of office objections. The matter was again listed before the court, as defects blissfully remained in tact, on 6-9-2010 and yet again this court granted a further week’s
