Karnataka High Court
O C Krishnappa vs Karnataka Lokayuktha on 5 July, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.1385 OF 2021 (GM-KLA)
IN
W.P.No.53648 OF 2017 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
O.C.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF OORUKERE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR.A.V.GANGADHARAPPA., ADV.,)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
2
4. GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OORUKERE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. SMT.GANGAMMA,
CLAIMING TO BE THE
WIFE OF ASHWATAHA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF OORUKERE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADV., FOR R1;
MR.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADV., FOR R2 - R4;
MR.V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV., FOR R5)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.53648/2017
AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED
FOR.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has bee filed against an order dated 02.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed and a direction has been issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to implement the recommendation dated 11.07.2017 submitted by the Upa Lokayukta within a period of four weeks. In 3 order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.
2. One Chikkarangaiah had been granted land measuring 1 acre of survey No.94 situate at Oorukere Village in Tumkur by an order dated 30.01.1982 passed by Land Tribunal, Tumkur. The aforesaid property devolved on his daughter viz., Rajamma on the basis of a partition deed dated 31.05.1990. The appellant claims to have purchased land bearing Khatha No.340 measuring (45 x 30 + 36)/2 feet vide registered sale deed dated 26.12.2008.
3. Respondent No.5 viz., the widow of late Ashwath claims to be the owner of land bearing Site No.11, Khatha No.2051 in Janatha Colony of Oorukere Village, Tumkur on the basis of a Hakku Patra. The appellant has filed a civil suit viz., O.S.No.875/2015 against respondent No.5 seeking 4 the relief of permanent injunction. In the aforesaid civil suit, the trial court granted an interim order of injunction dated 11.09.2015 and restrained grama panchayat from interfering with the property of the appellant.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.5 made a representation to zilla panchayat to enter her name in the revenue records in respect of the property in question. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 filed a complaint to Lokayukta, in which inter alia it was stated that she is the legal representative of late Ashwath who was granted the land bearing Site No.11. It was further stated that the revenue entries made in her favour in the revenue records have been transferred to the name of one Rajamma by officers of the revenue department for extraneous consideration. The Upa Lokayukta commenced an enquiry under Section 9 of the 5 Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and a report was sought from the Chief Executive Officer of zilla panchayat who in his report stated that by an order dated 07.06.2008, the name of the appellant has been rounded off and therefore, identification of the site boundaries with reference to Hakku Patra has to be carried out and action of eviction has to be taken against the encroacher. The Upa Lokayukta submitted a report dated 11.07.2017 under Section 12(1) of the Act. By the aforesaid report, the Upa Lokayukta recommended the appropriate authority to take action to effect khatha of site bearing No.11 by identifying the same with reference to boundaries mentioned in hakku patra, to evict the persons who has encroached the land and to hand over possession to respondent No.5. The appellant challenged the aforesaid report in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order 6 dated 02.12.2021 dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute with regard to title in respect of land in question is pending adjudication before the civil court at the instance of respondent No.5 in OS No.1010/2008 and therefore, the rights of the parties could not have been adjudicated by Upa Lokayukta. It is further submitted that report submitted by the Upa Lokayukta is binding and the same has been prepared without issuing any notice to the appellant. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition grossly erred in issuing a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to implement the recommendation made by Upa Lokayukta.
7
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that rights of the parties have not been adjudicated in the report submitted by the Upa Lokayukta and appropriate authority has been directed to take an action to effect khatha of site No.11 in the name of the complainant by identifying the same with reference to the boundaries and to evict any person who may have encroached the land in question. It is further submitted that no interference is called for in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Section 12 of the Act requires that report of enquiry into the action complained of together with recommendation of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta has to be forwarded to the competent authority who is required to take an action on the report. It appears that there is dispute 8 with regard to title as well as to the identity of the property in respect of which the appellant and respondent No.5 are staking claims. The relevant extract of the recommendation reads as under:
8. Therefore, it is recommended in exercise of the powers vested under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the appropriate authority to take action to effect Khatha of site No.11 bearing Khatha No.2051 situated in Oorukere village, Tumakuru Taluk in the name of the complainant by identifying the same with reference to the boundaries mentioned in the Hakku Patra to evict the person who has encroached and hand over the possession to the complainant.
9. Further, the competent authority shall to report within one month in relation to and in terms of Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act as to what action has been taken or will be taken.
9
8. Admittedly, no notice has been given to the appellant in respect of the proceeding culminating to submission of the report. However, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid report only enjoins the appropriate authority to take action to effect Khatha of Site No.11 in the name of the complainant by identifying the same with reference to the boundaries and to evict the person who has encroached the land. An action for implementation of the aforesaid report has to be taken by the appropriate authority. Needless to state that no action can be taken against the appellant in pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation until and unless an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the appellant. Therefore, the competent authority to whom the recommendation is made is under an obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and thereafter, to take an action for identifying the boundaries of the land in 10 question. Needless to state that if the land granted to the husband of Respondent No.5 is found to be in possession of the appellant, an action can be taken to dispossess him only in accordance with law.
To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. In the result, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS