Karnataka High Court
Mr Ashwath Narayanareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.23118/2015 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ASHWATH NARAYANAREDDY
S/O. LAKKUR MOTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. M. NANJUNDAREDDY
S/O. LAKKUR MOTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
3. M. RAJAGOPALAREDDY
S/O. LAKKUR MOTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT AREHALLI GUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE,
BASHETTIHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 563 203.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI UDHAYA KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBERS,
-2-
K.I.A.D.B. NO.14/3,
2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2,
K.I.A.D.B. NO.14/3,
ARAVINDA BHAVAN, FIRST FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 01.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O. LATE L.M. RAMACHANDRAREDDY,
6. SMT. PARIJATHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAREDDY,
7. MANJUNATHA R.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAREDDY,
8. KUMARI SUNITHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAREDDY,
9. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAREDDY,
10. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. LATE LAKKUR MOTAPPA,
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 10 ARE
R/AT AREHALLI GUDDADAHALLI,
KASABAHOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 562 203. ... RESPONDENTS
-3-
(BY SRI K.S. ARUN, HCGP FOR R-1;
MS. NAYANASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK,
ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3;
SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI S.D. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.S. NARAYAN,
ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-9;
R-10 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEX-A THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTICE DATED
23.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN FINAL NOTICE AND FINAL
SCRUTINY NOTE ISSUED BY THE R-4 MADE IN COMPLAINANT
NO.163/2008 DATED 23.08.2013.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition are assailing the Final notice dated 23/04/2014 bearing No.Bangalore/LAQ/145/2014-15 vide Annexure - A issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby the 3rd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB directed the petitioners to deposit the entire amount received by them with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ("KIADB") and final scrutiny note issued by the 4th respondent/Lokayukta dated 23/08/2013 made in -4- Complaint No.Lok.BCD.163/2008 vide Annexure - J, whereby the 4th respondent-Lokayukta has issued a direction to the 3rd respondent-KIADB to recover the compensation amount received by the petitioners and to disburse the same to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.247/2001.
2. The proceedings arise on the basis of the complaint dated 19/04/2008 filed by respondents 5 to 9 to the Lokayukta. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Sy.Nos.128/2B and 10/2, measuring 1 acre 31 guntas and 1 acre 11 guntas respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the petition property'). According to the petitioners, there was a family partition entered into between the petitioners and respondents 5 to 9 and as per the partition entered, the petition properties have fallen to the share of the petitioners. It is further stated that respondents 5 to 9 filed O.S.No.247/2001 against the petitioners herein for partition and separate possession seeking 1/5th share in the suit schedule -5- properties and the suit came to be decreed. Subsequently, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25/11/2009 in O.S.No.247/2001 (Annexure - D), the petitioners filed R.A.No.2/2010 before the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur and Appellate Court, by its order dated 10/03/2015 modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court awarding 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10/03/2015 in R.A.No.02/2010, RSA.No.849/2015 has been preferred before this Court pending consideration the further proceedings in FDP has been stayed.
3. It is stated that the complaint was lodged by respondents 5 to 9 against the officials of the KIADB stating that the officers have disbursed the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners without looking into the civil dispute which was pending consideration between the parties before the Civil Court. It appears that the complaint was entertained by the 4th -6- respondent-Lokayukta and the Lokayukta held enquiry and passed a final scrutiny note on the Complaint No.Lok.BCD.163/2008 vide Annexure - J directing the Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to recover the compensation amount received by the petitioners herein to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs and to disburse the said amount in favour of the plaintiffs therein in the suit.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that on the basis of the directions/final scrutiny note at Annexure-J issued by the 4th respondent-Lokayukta, the Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB has issued a final notice at Annexure-A directing the petitioners to redeposit the compensation amount received with 15% interest per annum. According to the petitioners, the final scrutiny notice issued by the 4th respondent- Lokayukta is one without jurisdiction and as such, the final notice issued by the KIADB on the basis of the -7- scrutiny note of the Lokayukta is arbitrary and contrary to law.
5. Per contra, 3rd respondent-the Special Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB has filed its statement of objections and has stated that the said respondent had acquired the petition property by issuing final notification dated 01/03/2006 and finding the name of the petitioners in the revenue records, notice was issued under Section 28 (2), (6) and 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. It is further stated that they were not aware about the interim order or about the civil dispute between the petitioners and 5th to 9th respondent and consequently, the compensation amount was reimbursed to the petitioners whose name was found in the revenue records. It is further stated that consequent to the directions issued by the Lokayukta and taking into consideration the order passed in Civil Proceedings, the said respondent has issued final notice to the petitioners to refund the -8- compensation amount with interest. It is stated that the release of compensation amount in favour of the petitioners is due to the suppression of the pendency of O.S. No.247/2001 and would further state that the Lokayukta, after hearing the complainant has issued direction to the Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB to recover the compensation amount received by the petitioners herein to the extent of the share of the plaintiff as per the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.247/2001 and to disburse the same to the plaintiffs. According to 3rd respondent, the direction issued by the Lokayukta is justifiable and accordingly, action has been taken. The respondent would contend that the action on the part of 3rd respondent is in accordance with law and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The 4th respondent-Lokayukta has filed statement of objections denying the petition averments and would justify the order passed at Annexure-J as -9- being in accordance with law. Other than denying the writ petition averments, no specific averments are made in their statement of objections about the power empowered upon the Lokayukta to pass an order of direction to recover the compensation amount. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Udhaya Kumar G.; learned High Court Government Pleader Sri K.S.Arun for 1st respondent; learned counsel Ms. Nayanashree for Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondents; Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel for 4th respondent and Sri S.D. Manjunath, learned counsel for Sri M.S. Narayan learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9 and perused the material on record.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while assailing the final notice at Annexure-A issued by the 3rd respondent would contend that the final notice issued is based on Annexure-J the final scrutiny note
- 10 -
issued by the 4th respondent-Lokayukta, who under the Act had no jurisdiction under the guise of holding an enquiry against the public servants. According to the learned counsel the 4th respondent-Lokayukta has over stepped in its jurisdiction and has issued a final scrutiny note directing the 3rd respondent to recover the compensation amount from the petitioners in which the petitioners are not parties too. According to the learned counsel when the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction in deciding the rights of the petitioners the final notice issued by the 3rd respondent would not be sustainable and would contend that the final scrutiny note at Annexure-J is one without jurisdiction and the final notice issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be quashed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-KIADB would contend that the final notice issued is in consequent to the directions issued by the Lokayukta who inturn had taken into consideration
- 11 -
the civil dispute between the parties and on holding enquiry had directed the 3rd respondent to recover the amount from the petitioners. According to the learned counsel the Lokayukta has rightly passed an order as the petitioners had suppressed the pendency of O.S. No.247/2001. Stating these grounds, the learned counsel would contend that the petition needs to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
10. Sri. Puttegowda K.N, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Lokayukta would contend that the order passed by the Lokayukta is justifiable, which is based on the complaint lodged by the respondents 5 to 9 and on an enquiry, it has been held that the officials of the KIADB have colluded with the petitioners in releasing the compensation amount to the petitioners which they are not exclusively entitled to. Stating these grounds, the learned counsel would contend that the petition needs to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
- 12 -
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration:
"i. Whether the Lokayukta under the Act has jurisdiction to direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB to recover the compensation amount and hold enquiry in respect of dispute which is of a civil nature?
ii. Whether the 3rd respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB could have issued a final notice at Annexure-A based on the directions issued by the 4th respondent/Lokayukta?"
Point No.I
12. The administrative reforms committee had recommended the setting up of institution of Lokayukta for the purpose of improving the standards of public administration, by looking into complaints against the administrative actions, including the cases of corruptions, favoritism and official indiscipline in administration machinery. It is for this reason and for making enquiries in the aforesaid matters, the
- 13 -
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('the Act' for short) came to be enacted by the State Legislature.
13. The Lokayukta may investigate a complaint involving "allegations as mentioned in Section 2(2)" and "grievance as mentioned in Section 2 (8)" of the Act in respect of any action which is taken by or with the general or special approval of the public servant enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 7.
14. The Act defines the words "action", "allegation" and "grievance" under Sections 2(1), 2(2) and 2(8), respectively, which read as under:
"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-
(1) "Action" means administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes wilful failure or omission to act and all other expressions relating to such action shall be construed accordingly.
- 14 -
(2) "Allegation" in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant-
a. has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person;
b. was actuated in the discharge of his
functions as such public servant by
personal interest or improper or
corrupt motives;
c. is guilty of corruption, favouritism,
nepotism, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant;
OR d. has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he belongs."
x x x (8) "grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration;"
- 15 -
15. Therefore, under the scheme of the Act, the Lokayukta has been conferred with the power to investigate into a complaint involving an allegation or a grievance against the public servant where a public servant has abused his position to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person or he was actuated in discharge of his function as such, public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motive or is guilty of corruption, favoritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant or has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity or conduct which ought to be followed by the public servants of the clause to which he belongs. The jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta has contained in Section 7 of the Act and Section 7 of the Act deals as under:
"7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any
- 16 -
action which is taken by or with the general or special approval of.-
(a) (i) the Chief Minister;
(ii) a Minister;
(iii) a member of the State Legislature;
(iv) the Chairman and Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a member of an authority, board or a committee, a statutory or non-statutory body or a corporation established by or under any law of the State Legislature including a society, co-operative society or a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, nominated by the State Government;
in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action.
(b) any other public servant holding a post or office carrying either a fixed pay, salary or remuneration of more than rupees twenty thousand per month or a pay scale the minimum of which is more than rupees twenty thousand, as may be revised from time to time in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is
- 17 -
made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, recorded in writing, the subject of a grievance or an allegation.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, an Upa-lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servant refereed to in sub-section (1), in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-lokayukta, recorded in writing. the subject of a grievance or an allegation.
(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta may investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the State Government.
(3) Where two or more Upa-lokayuktas are appointed under this Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of
- 18 -
them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act.
Provided that no investigation made by an Upa-lokayukta under this Act, and no action taken or things done by him in respect of such investigation shall be open to question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (3), when the office of a Upa-lokayukta is vacant by reason of his death, resignation, retirement, removal or otherwise or when an Upa-lokayukta is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, his function may be discharged by the other Upa-lokayukta, if any, and if there is no other Upa-lokayukta by the Lokayukta."
16. The grievance or the allegation should be in respect of an action against a public servant as defined under the Act and the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta do not extend beyond what is specifically contained in Section 7 of the Act. The
- 19 -
Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the person other than the public servant as defined under the Act nor has been conferred any power to investigate a grievance or an allegation against a private individual. The Lokayukta and Upalokayukta have also not been conferred with the power to investigate into the title of the property which are the matters exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and the Lokayukta cannot take over the power of the Civil Court under the guise of investigation under the Act. The investigation to be conducted is only with reference to the action of the public servant, the abuse of such office, allegation of corruption, nepotism, lack of integrity on the part of the public servant and any illegal gains made by the public servant and action to be taken only against the public servants.
17. Section 12 of the Act provides for submission of report after investigation by the Lokayukta, which reads as under:
- 20 -
"12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.-If, after investigation of any action [x x x x x] involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent Authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report.
(2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa-
lokayukta the action taken on the report.
(3) If, after investigation of any action [x x x x x] involving an allegation has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant
- 21 -
documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority.
(4) The Competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub- section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.
(5) If the Lokayukta or the Upa-
lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent Authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the Competent Authority concerned and the Complainant.
(6) The Lokayukta shall present on or before 31st October of every year, a consolidated report on the performance of his
- 22 -
functions and that of the Upa-lokayukta under this Act to the Governor.
(7) On receipt of the special report under sub-section (5), or the annual report under sub-section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature.
(8) The Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta may at his discretion make available, from time to time, the substances of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate."
18. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 deals with an investigation of any action involving a grievance and if the Lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall by report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall
- 23 -
be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report.
19. Sub-Section (3) of Section 12 contemplates that after investigation of any action involving allegations the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such allegation either wholly or partly is substantiated, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. Thus, a condition precedent for submitting the said report is only when the allegation is substantiated and not otherwise. Looking into the object behind the legislation and in view of the clear definitions contained in the Act regarding action, allegations and grievance and the persons against whom the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of both of them is clearly defined. Strictly speaking their jurisdictions extend to investigate any action taken by the public servant as defined under
- 24 -
the Act and not otherwise. The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta has no jurisdiction to go into the title of the property, the nature of the property standing in the name of private individual.
20. The relevant portion of the complaint at Annexure-H dated 19/04/2008 reads as under:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À PÀqÀvÀªÀ£Éß E®èªÁV¹, ¹ÜgÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è oÉêÀuÉ EqÀzÉ £À£Àß ªÉÄÈzÀÄ£ÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.£ÀAdÄAqÀgÉrØ, gÁdUÉÆÃ¥Á® gÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C±ÀévÀÛgÉrØ gÀªÀjAzÀ (J) ²æÃ.ªÀÄĤ£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà, «±ÉõÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁj, (©) n.±ÀAPÀgÀ¥Àà, ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ, (¹) zÀƼÀAiÀÄå, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ (gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
(r) £ÁUÀ¨sÀƵÀuï, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á«ÄïÁV ®AZÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ºÉƸÀ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁPÀëåªÀ£ÀÄß E®èªÁV¸ÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝÃ£É ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀºÀ PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝãÉ. (J¯Áè zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ «±ÉõÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁj PÀbÉÃj, (CAvÀgÀ gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ «ªÀiÁ£À ¤¯ÁÝt), PÉ.L.J.r.©. ¸ÀASÉåB3, Tä ©°ØAUï, ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà ªÀĺÀr, ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà PÁæ¸ï, UÁA¢£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560009 gÀ°èªÉ). "
- 25 -
21. It is in this background that the complaint filed, the investigation conducted by the Lokayukta, the final scrutiny note submitted by the Lokayukta and the final notice issued by the 3rd respondent needs to be considered.
22. The complaint is very clear wherein it is mentioned that the public servants have disbursed the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners in spite of the objections raised by the complainant and alleges that the public servants abusing their position and to obtain gain had released the compensation amount. However, if the Lokayukta chooses to investigate the complaint the said investigation could be only regarding the grievance or allegation as defined under the Act. The grievance and the allegations though are made against the public servants the Lokayukta in the course of investigations and while issuing a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB to recover the compensation amount ought to have taken
- 26 -
into consideration that the petitioners are not parties to the complaint. The Lokayukta knowing fully well while dealing with the property which stands in the names of the petitioners ought to have heard the petitioners and thus, the directions issued against the petitioners, who is not a public servant, the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate and declare the civil rights of the parties. Thus, the first direction issued by the Lokayukta at Annexure-J is one without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed and point No.i is answered accordingly.
Point No.ii
23. It is undisputed that O.S.No.247/2001 was filed by the respondents 5 to 9 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of suit property which is the petition property herein. Accordingly, plaintiffs and defendants were granted 1/5th share. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners preferred R.A.No.2/2010, wherein Appellate Court
- 27 -
modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and held that the respondents 5 to 9/plaintiffs are entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred RSA No.849/2015 stating that it is exclusive property of the petitioners and the same is pending consideration and an interim order has been passed directing that the final decree proceedings shall not be proceeded. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had filed complaint before the Lokayukta against the KIADB officials. Accordingly, after an enquiry the following directions were issued by the Lokayukta:
"i) The Special Land Acquisition officer, International Air-port, KIADB, No.3, Kheni Building, 1st cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore may be directed to recover the compensation amount received by the said Nanjundareddy, Rajagopala Reddy and Ashwathanarayana Reddy to the extent of share of plaintiffs in O.S.247/2001 and to disburse the same to the plaintiffs.
- 28 -
ii) Further, the Dy.Commissioner,
Doddaballapur and the Land Acquisition
Officer, KIADB, Bangalore, Respondent No.1, are directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officials responsible for not placing the objections filed by the complainant referring to O.S.247/2001 in the concerned file, that leading to the paying entire compensation to only 3 sharers."
24. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer-2-KIADB would contend that the action taken by the 3rd respondent is in pursuance of the final scrutiny note by the Lokayukta. The complaint lodged would clearly depicts that it is an allegations against the public servant and seeking directions of the Lokayukta to take action against the public servant. However, the proceedings initiated by the Lokayukta is beyond the jurisdiction as stated while answering point No.i and the final notice being initiated in pursuance to the final scrutiny note issued by the Lokayukta the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustainable and is also liable to be
- 29 -
quashed. Thus, the power exercised by the 3rd respondent-KIADB is vitiated and not sustainable and point No.ii is answered accordingly.
25. For the reasons stated supra, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The direction at Sl. No.(i) at Annexure-J dated 23/08/2013 issued by the Lokayukta under the head Final Scrutiny Note is hereby quashed having exceeded the jurisdiction.
(iii) Consequently, Final Notice by the 3rd respondent dated 23/04/2014 bearing No.Bangalore/LAQ/145/2014-2015 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
(iv) It is needles to observe that the parties are at liberty to workout their remedy in the pending RSA No.849/2015 and the rights of
- 30 -
the parties would be subject to the result of the civil dispute.
(v) In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking into the complaint and the final scrutiny note, this court deems it fit to direct the concerned authority to comply the directions at Sl. No.(ii) dated 23/08/2013 if not complied with.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE S*