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