IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J.
Sri N. Gangadhara S/o. Late Nanjappa - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1386 of 2019 (KLR-CON)
Decided On : 26-04-2019
Grant of conversion from agricultural land to non agricultural purposes - Demand for money - Whether it was demand as alleged by Petitioner is required to be ascertained through proper investigation to be conducted by competent authority - Whether there was demand for money if so for what amount - This Court would place on record its appreciation for interest shown by learned Addl. Advocate General without his intervention aforesaid correction would definitely not have taken place within such short span of time - This Court would also place on record its appreciation for correction work carried out by present JDLR - In this proceedings petitioner has filed an affidavit complaining that previous JDLR whom petitioner had approached seeking correction to wrongful entry made - Allegation of petitioner is that then JDLR had demanded a sum from petitioner as bribe to rectify mistake committed by earlier officers - It is also stated that in absence of petitioner fulfilling his demand said person vengefully created records in such a manner that as if entire exercise which he did in confirming wrongful entry made is pursuant to a report submitted thereafter same being approved by Government - Aforesaid conduct of officer shows ingenuity with which he would operate in shifting responsibility for his work on others simultaneously projecting himself as an honest officer – Held, Court would further observe that demand for bribe by Government officers is neither new nor shocking in as much as it has become order of day - Therefore to expect common man either to go to police or to lodge complaint to higher authorities cannot be expected under all circumstances - In as much as scenario is in no way different in both places - It is in this background victims feel comfortable to come to Court as last resort where they can come out with all accusation in a free and unbiased atmosphere - It is in this background it is stated by learned counsel that he has made such accusation and allegation against - In any event considering manner in which order is passed raises a doubt in mind of this Court - Therefore accusation which is made cannot be brushed aside by putting it under carpet as if it is a routine meaningless and purposeless allegation or accusation - Same is required to be enquired into by a competent authority which is constituted by State in form of Anti Corruption Bureau - Therefore this Court would direct that entire record be sent to ACB for conducting of enquiry against - Investigation Officer of ACB after investigation shall bring to notice of this Court final report prepared which shall be done within ninety days from date of receipt of this copy – Thereafter final decision will be taken by this court - Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that his client had to suffer because of impugned order in as much as his application for conversion has been rejected - Now that stigma under impugned order is removed and position of land is correctly shown as it is in existence same would not come in way of petitioner seeking conversion of his land in accordance with procedure prescribed for grant of conversion from agricultural land to non agricultural purposes - Writ petition is accordingly disposed of
ORDER :
When this matter was heard on 23.4.2019, an order was passed directing the present Joint Director of Land Records Smt. Kusumalatha P.S. to carry out correction in survey record of land bearing SY.No.62/1C of Devasandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Today she would bring to the notice of this Court the correction carried out by her in Tippani book as well as Akarband and Pakka book of Sy.No.62/1C of Devasandra Village, in rectifying the mistake which was done by some of the Officers of Survey Department in the year 1999. As could be seen from the records, the location of the aforesaid land was disturbed in changing its position as it stood in the survey records on 14.03.1981, in wrongfully showing that the same as moved from its original position to its right and the same being placed on kalmaratti kharab portion in the said land.
2. This Court would place on record its appreciation for the interest shown by learned Addl. Advocate General Sri Dinesh Rao, without his intervention the aforesaid correction would definitely not have taken place within such short span of time. This Court would also place on record its appreciation for the correction work carried out by the present JDLR.
3. In this proceedings the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 8.4.2019, complaining that, the previous JDLR K.Jayaprakash whom petitioner had approached seeking correction to the wrongful entry made in the year 1999. The allegation of the petitioner is that the then JDLR had demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner as bribe to rectify the mistake committed by earlier officers in the year 1999. It is also stated that in the absence of petitioner fulfilling his demand the said person vengefully created records in such a manner that as if the entire exercise which he did in confirming the wrongful entry made during 1999 is pursuant to a report submitted by the Tahsildar, thereafter the same being approved by the Government. The aforesaid conduct of the officer shows the ingenuity with which he would operate in shifting the responsibility for his work on others, simultaneously projecting himself as an honest officer.
4. When entire material available on record is viewed, this Court has no doubt regarding the allegation against the then JDLR Jayaprakash. However, whether there was demand for money, if so for what amount, whether it was demand for Rs.20,00,000/- as alleged by the Petitioner is required to be ascertained through proper investigation to be conducted by competent authority. However, the said allegation is opposed by the delinquent officer Sri. Jayaprakash represented by learned Additional Advocate General Sri Dinesh Rao. He would contend that, the said allegation and accusation is false. He would contend that, if at all the same were to be genuine, nothing prevented the petitioner from immediately approaching the higher-ups or placing the same before this Court. This court would pause for a while and observe that in fact, learned counsel Sri Nagaiah on the very first instance when the matter was taken up for consideration, did mention that the order impugned is passed by the Officer K. Jayaprakash due to non fulfillment of his illegal demand. He was hesitant to submit the nature of demand. Then this Court insisted that unless the same is placed on record, this Court is not in a position to access entire material. Thereafter the affidavit of the petitioner is filed on 8.4.2019.
5. At this juncture, the court would further observe that the demand for bribe by the Government officers is neither new nor shocking in as much as it has become order of the day. Therefore, to expect the common man either to go to police or to lodge complaint to higher authorities cannot be expected under all circumstances. In as much as the scenario is in no way different in both places. It is in this background, the victims feel comfortable to come to the Court as last resort where they can come out with all the accusation in a free
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.