Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dr. Shivanna M G vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2024
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4391 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.15178 of 2021)
DR. SHIVANNA M G … APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4392-4397 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6112-6117 of 2022)
MUNIRAJU M. … APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4398-4400 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.23148-23150 of 2022)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. … APPELLANTS
Versus
JAYAMMA AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated
03.09.2021, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed the writ appeal filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
appellant(s) and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge dated
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2024.04.01
19:29:39 IST
Reason:
15.03.2021.
2
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and
quashed the order dated 18.02.2020, passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore and,
consequently, issued the following directions:
1. The writ petitions are allowed with costs of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, payable by
the respondent-Assistant Commissioner (Sri
M.G.Shivanna), the respondent-Tahsildar (Sri Shivappa
Lamani) and respondent No.8 (Sri M .Muniraju) to each
of the four petitioners. The costs shall be paid within
a period of four weeks from today and an
acknowledgement shall be furnished in the office, for
records. The strictures passed by this Court and costs
imposed on the respondent-Assistant Commissioner and
the respondent-Tahsildar shall be entered in their
Service Register.
2. The impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.K-SC-ST(S)
15/2019-2020, is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The matter stands remanded to the Assistant
Commissioner who shall issue notice to the petitioners
herein, permit them to file objections and raise all
grounds including the question of delay and laches in
initiation of the proceedings under Section 5 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue, shall initiate an enquiry against the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner and the respondent-
Tahsildar and if required place them under suspension
immediately. At any rate, the respondent-Assistant
Commissioner Sri M.G.Shivanna, shall not hear this
matter.
5. The enquiry may be entrusted to the Hon'ble
Lokayukta.
6. The petitioners herein shall be put back in
possession of the land in question, which was resumed
by virtue of the impugned order.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach
the competent Civil Court to seek compensation/damages
at the hands of the respondent-Assistant Commissioner,
3
respondent-Tahsildar, the State Government and the 8th
respondent Sri. M Muniraju.
8. The recommendation dated 01.11.2019, made by the
National Commission and the communication dated
11.01.2019, need not be acted upon.
A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief
Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue, for further action. A copy of this order shall
also be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this
Court.”
4. The Division Bench of the High Court, while upholding the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, has observed as follows:
“25. We are of the view that in fact the learned
Single Judge has taken a lenient view while imposing
cost of Rs.10,000/- on the Assistant Commissioner and
the Tahsildar. It is because of these officers, the
residential houses owned by the rightful owners are
demolished highhandedly. The Assistant Commissioner
passed an order for restoration and resumption on
18.02.2020 and on. 26.02.2020, the Assistant
Commissioner and Tahsildar have demolished the
residential buildings. This highhanded action on the
part of the authorities has caused irreparable loss and
hardship to the rightful owners. In the sphere of
valuable property rights, the State, its
instrumentality, public authorities or those whose acts
bear insignia of public element are enjoined to act in
a manner prescribed under the statues and rules i.e.,
the authorities are required to act in a fair, just and
equitable manner after taking objectively all relevant
options into consideration and in a manner that is
reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the
purpose for public good and in general public
interest.”
5. The Division Bench further held as follows:
“27. If these significant details are taken into
consideration, this Court would find that the conduct
of the appellant-Shri Muniraju in W.A.No.453/2021 is
unfair and the records also demonstrate that he has
abused the process of law.”
6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the
4
appellant(s) and have gone through the entire records with their
able assistance.
7. Some of the broadly admitted facts are as follows:
(i) Kaveriga’s legal heirs sold the subject land to one
Karar Ahmed vide a registered Sale Deed dated 09.04.2001.
(ii) Karar Ahmed got the subject land converted from
agricultural to non-agricultural on 21.09.2001.
(iii) Karar Ahmed sold a part of the subject land to one
K.Boopathy through a registered Sale Deed on 27.07.2002.
(iv) Karar Ahmed sold the remaining land on 21.05.2003 to
Pathy Housing Pvt. Ltd. represented by K.Boopathy.
(v) Thereafter, K.Boopathy sold 12 residential sites
developed on the portion of the subject land to one K.C.
Varghese on 27.01.2005.
(vi) The above-mentioned 12 sites were further sold by K.C.
Varghese to M/s Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd,
on 07.06.2012.
(vii) The above-named developer has also sold some of the
sites to individual private respondents, who, thereafter,
constructed their residential units at the purchased sites.
(viii) The High Court, vide the order dated 03.04.2019,
passed in W.P.No.56193 of 2017, directed to remove the name
of one of the appellants (Muniraju M.) from the revenue
records and make entries in favour of the above-named vendee.
8. The original vendor was predecessor-in-interest of the
appellant - Muniraju M. Neither the predecessor-in-interest nor the
appellant - Muniraju M. filed any application under Section 5 of
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, `the 1978 Act’) to
claim that the subject land was a granted land and/or it was sold
5
in violation of Section 4 of the 1978 Act. It may be noticed that
if a sale transaction takes place in violation of Section 4 of the
1978 Act, the Prescribed Authority, on an application by an
interested person, or on receipt of information in writing or suo
motu, can hold an enquiry and declare such sale deed as null and
void. Section 5(3) of the 1978 Act further provides that if a
person other than the original grantee or his legal heir is in
possession of the “granted land”, it shall be presumed that such a
person has acquired the land by transfer, which is null and void
“until the contrary is proved”.
9. In the absence of any application under Section 5 of the
1978 Act alleging purported violation of Section 4 at the time when
the first sale deed dated 09.04.2001 was executed in favour of
Karar Ahmed, it is an admitted fact that no order declaring the
successive sale deeds in respect of the subject land to be null and
void has ever been passed under the 1978 Act.
10. However, on 01.11.2019, the National Commission of
Scheduled Castes (for short, `the National Commission’) passed an
order, without hearing the vendees or interested persons,
recommending to declare the first Sale Deed dated 09.04.2001 to be
null and void and to restore the subject land in favour of the
appellant-Muniraju M.
11. The order of the National Commission was challenged by M/s
Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd. before the High Court in
Writ Petition No.915/2020, and vide order dated 22.01.2020, the
Single Judge Bench of the High Court stayed the said order of the
6
National Commission. However, the authorities were permitted to
exercise their power under the provisions of the 1978 Act.
12. Without taking notice of the interim stay granted by the
High Court and without even issuing notice to the successive
subsequent vendees, whose brief details have been given in para 7
of this order, the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-
Division, Bangalore, namely, the appellant-Dr. Shivanna MG, passed
an order on 18.02.2020, declaring the Sale Deeds dated 09.04.2001
and 27.07.2002 to be null and void and further directed to resume
the possession of the subject land and restore the same in favour
of Muniraju M. For this purpose, a direction was issued to the
Tehsildar, Bengaluru, South Taluk to take necessary action.
13. It has come on record that pursuant thereto the subsequent
vendees (some of whom are private respondents) were forcibly
dispossessed and their houses were demolished.
14. The aforesaid action came to be challenged before the
High Court in Writ Petition No.9723 of 2020, which was allowed by a
learned Single Judge with the directions already reproduced in para
3 of this order, and which have been further affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated
03.09.2021. In the process of setting aside the order of
18.02.2020, the learned Single Judge, whose order was confirmed by
the Division Bench, analysed the scope of the powers of the
National Commission. The learned Single Judge, relying on All
India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association
and Others vs. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606 and other
7
judgments, rightly held that, under Article 338 (5), the functions
entrusted to the Commission are in the nature of investigation and
examination of various safeguards provided to Scheduled Castes as a
class and that the provision does not clothe the Commission with
such powers as to entertain a petition filed by a grantee seeking
restoration of the land and an investigation into the matter. In
All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare
Association (supra), it was held in para 10 as under:-
“10. Interestingly, here, in clause (8) of Article
338, the words used are “the Commission shall … have
all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit”.
But the words “all the powers of a Civil Court” have
to be exercised “while investigating any matter
referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any
complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause
5”. All the procedural powers of a civil court are
given to the Commission for the purpose of
investigating and inquiring into these matters and
that too for that limited purpose only. The powers
of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary
or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor
can such a power be inferred or derived from a
reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the
Constitution.”
This was quite apart from the finding of the learned Single Judge,
as affirmed by the Division Bench, that the recommendation of the
National Commission was made without even issuing notice to the
persons against whom Shri M. Muniraju had made a complaint. The
Commission’s order, undoubtedly, is patently illegal and in excess
of the powers vested in it.
15. It is pertinent and extremely important to bring on
record that Muniraju M., who has a 27 year old son and two
8
daughters aged 29 and 31 years executed a registered General Power
of Attorney on 18.09.2020 in favour of (i) Sunil Kumar N S/o Nagesh
A.R. and (ii) P.Venkatesh S/o Papanna Reddy, pursuant to a Joint
Development Agreement of the even date, i.e., 18.09.2020. By virtue
of this General Power of Attorney, the power to sell, mortgage,
create third party interest, correspond with private/government/
semi-government bodies, obtain necessary permissions, develop the
land, to appear and represent Muniraju M. etc., were exclusively
transferred in favour of these Power of Attorney holders.
16. The facts, therefore, speak for themselves as to who were
the forces behind Muniraju M., who was being projected as a victim
with reference to the statutory scheme of the 1978 Act. It is that
Power of Attorney who has been representing Muniraju M. in all the
proceedings, including the ones before the High Court.
Surprisingly, after suffering the judgments before the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, the Special
Leave Petition giving rise to this Civil Appeal has been filed by
Muniraju M. without disclosing the factum of General Power of
Attorney or the Joint Development Agreement. We have no reason to
doubt that there is a powerful and affluent developer behind
securing the ex-facie arbitrary and illegal orders from various
authorities, referred above. In view of the above, the correctional
measures taken by the High Court warrants no interference by this
Court.
17. As regards the Civil Appeal filed by the State of
Karnataka, their only grievance is against the observations made by
9
the learned Single Judge in para 28 of the impugned judgment. In
the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to expunge those
observations. Ordered accordingly. C.A.Nos.4398-4400/2024 @
SLP(C)Nos.23148-23150/2022 are allowed to the above extent.
18. The Civil AppealLeave granted.
C.A.Nos.4398-4400/2024 @ SLP(C)Nos.23148-23150/2022 are
allowed in terms of the signed order.
C.A. No.4391 of 2024 @ SLP(C)No.15178 of 2021 and
C.A.Nos.4392-4397 of 2024 @ SLP(C)Nos.6112-6117 of 2022 are
dismissed in terms of the signed order.s filed by Muniraju M. and
Dr.Shivanna MG (C.A. No.4391 of 2024 @ SLP(C)No.15178 of 2021 and
C.A.Nos.4392-4397 of 2024 @ SLP(C)Nos.6112-6117 of 2022) are,
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be costs of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees ten lakhs) on Muniraju M., which shall be paid to the
vendees whose houses have been demolished without any notice and in
a highhandedness manner. The costs of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be
recovered personally from the General Power of Attorney holders,
namely, (i) Sunil Kumar N S/o Nagesh A.R. and (ii) P. Venkatesh S/o
Papanna Reddy and/or their companies/firms or other legal entities.
19. The Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police,
State of Karnataka are directed to ensure that the cost amount is
recovered from these Power of Attorney holders and disbursed to the
vendees of the plots in equal proportion. The needful shall be done
within two months. Any delay, defiance or dereliction on their part
shall be viewed seriously.
20. The Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary, Revenue,
10
State of Karnataka are further directed to meticulously comply with
the directions issued by the High Court for taking disciplinary
action/making entries in the service record of Dr.Shivanna MG and
send a Compliance Report to the Secretary General of this Court
within one month.
21. The order dated 30.09.2022, passed by this Court to
maintain the status quo, stands vacated.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2024.
11
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15178/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-09-2021
in WA No.444/2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru)
DR. SHIVANNA M G Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)
([LIST ON 19.03.2024 AS FIRST ITEM])
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6112-6117/2022 (IV-A)
IA No. 158787/2023 - APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF INTERIM ORDER)
SLP(C) No. 23148-23150/2022 (IV-A)
Date : 19-03-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravivarma Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhash Chandra Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Darpan K.M., Adv.
Ms. Amrita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Adv.
Mr. Durgha Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Shaurya Lamba, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv.
Ms. Rashi Bansal, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv.
12
Ms. Pragya Ganjoo, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Singla, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Vinayaka S Pandit, Adv.
Mr. Somashekara Km, Adv.
Mr. Somashekara K, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv.
Mrs. Rakhi M, Adv.
Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv.
Mr. Shivamm Sharrma, Adv.
Ms. Anusha R, Adv.
Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurthy, Adv.
Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv.
Ms. Sunidhi Hegde, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
C.A.Nos.4398-4400/2024 @ SLP(C)Nos.23148-23150/2022 are allowed in terms of the signed order.
C.A. No.4391 of 2024 @ SLP(C)No.15178 of 2021 and C.A.Nos.4392-4397 of 2024 @ SLP(C)Nos.6112-6117 of 2022 are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
The order dated 30.09.2022, passed by this Court to maintain the status quo, stands vacated.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)