Karnataka High Court
Sri Mangilal S/O Kesaram @ Kesa vs The State Information Commissioner on 27 May, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 373
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN: VAL ORE 7
DATED THIS THE 27" DAY OF MAY 2010 .
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NI Td. Gt UNJAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 5601 /2009(GM- Res
BETWEEN :
Sri.Mangilal,
S/o.Kesaram ©@ Kesa,
Aged about 70 ye ars,
Presently residing at. a
No.48/A, Classic: Orchar ds.
Behind Me enaksi Tempie,
Banneraghatta Road,
Bangalore, €. .
And permanitn t resident of
... Mokalsar village...
Siwana Tahsil,
a Barmer District, Rajasthan. . PETITIONER
(Bys Sri. Basav aprabhu S.Patil, Sr.Adv. for
"Sri.B.L.Srikantaiah &
~ Sri. B.S.Radhanandan, Adv.)
AND.
. ~y 'he State Information
Comunissioner,
Government of Karnataka.
M.S. Buildirig,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi.
Bangalore ~ 1].
ee ..
Nestea 5,
ae :
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Doddaballapura Sub-Division,
Podium Block,
Visweshwaraiah Towers, --
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore -- 1.
3. The Tahsildar,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Devanahalli Town... ae Oe
Bangalore Rural District, ._ oo 4, RESPONDENTS
{By Sri.N arendra Prasad. . HCGP) ~
T. his writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 issued by the 1+
respondent at Annexure' "Bo and etc,
This writ petition coming on for final hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
"The "petitioner is questioning the initiation of proceedings. under the Right to Information Act and also "the ordér passed by the Is respondent ~- State Infermation Commissioner. 'The petitioner is also ~-guestioning the notice issued by the 24 respondent under Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which is an offshoot of the directions issued by the [+ fh 1 ted 1 respondent -- pursuant to its orders dated Anmexures, B* &G,
2. The matter arises in the following manner:
The petitioner pursuant to various sale deeds had -- acquired as mary as | 0 sites of various extents. It appears an application -is moved by, one V.Bhaskar under the Right to Information' Act, 2805 to the Public Information Officer. Office of the. Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk seeking certain information in respect of these acquired lands. 'The information, which is sought is:
(a Copy of. the Declarations filed in Form ~No.12 Yineluding Annexures 'A' & °B') of . Rule No.28 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and Section 79-A of De {e) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Copy of the Enquiry Reports conducted by the Tahsildar to verify the Income particulars of the Buyer from the Income Tax Authorities.
Copy of Reports sent by the Village Accountant, Revenue hh ispector and Sheristedar for change of Mutation in > respect of the above land in the name of the buyer. _ (dj) Name of Village Accountant. Revenue -
Inspector, Sheristedar and Tahsilaur :
who are responsible Jer Ckange_ of Mutattort tri. respect ef the. | above land in the name of the buyer:
(e} copy Q M utetion Reg eer EXtract.
(f). Cer tified copy. of all Pile Noting, Office Notes, Reports. Orders available in the file | 'yelating to transfer of Khatha/ Miitation.
B. 1b. appears this information was not furnished by. the. Pu aie Information Officer. Office of the Tahsildar,~ "Devanahalli Taluk. Hence, the © said . application was placed before the 1st respondent. The is respondent issued notice to the petitioner and all other concerried and the applicant was assisted by Counsel, so also the respondents before the State Information Commissioner. The State Information v4) Commissioner, pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2008 has directed the 3" respondent to gather. necessary. information in respect of the acquisition of the land by:
the petitioner, including whether the land was granted in favour of the petitioner and the same is in violation of Sections 79A & 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act inasmuch as, as on 01.03.1974, whether the petitioner was an agriculturist and with reference to his income. The order further discloses that a finding is practically recorded indicatmg that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In the circtimstances. - the ; Commission directed the 2"
7 respondent. te initiate appropriate proceedings and file a yeport within' a period of 30 days. The matter thereafter 7 was adjourned to 22.01.2009. The proceedings on 24.01.2009 would further diselose that notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had made an application on 15.05.2008, since the said information was not given. an explanation was sought as to the delay. The Commissioner further directed the 2" respondent to
-~-6- report to him as to the progress on the initiation. of proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued. by the Stare Information Commissioner,. the 2°¢ respondent has» initiated proceedings under. Section 79A. of the Karnataka Land Reforrns Aet and has issued a notice, copy of which is produced ai. Annexure 1, calling upon the petitioner to" file his reply as to why action should not be initioted under Section as of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings undér the Karnataka Land Reforms Aci | at ime behest of the 1% respondent -- Commissioner. me, Sin. the premise that such a direction could not have been issued. by the Commissioner inasmuch as it is ~outside.ithe purview of the Act itself.
oo
5. Mr.Basavaprabhu S%.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has two fold submission to make. He submits that the simple information, the Public Information Officer of the Office , of Tahsildar was required to give was only in respect of . - the acquisition of lands by the petitioner, if the said information was available with "he Public q nformation : Officer, that could have been 'supplied "if not : aii endorsement is required to 'be issued. Indeed the Commission could not. heve transgressed its limits and directed the Revenue Authority to > Initiate proceedings under the Karnataka Land. "Reforms Act so as to ascertain wheter th the petitioner bas violated any of the provisicns of See tions 7OA ne 79B of the Act. He further submits that the notice € issued by the 2" respondent, : which stems from the directions of the 1s respondent is " also. one without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is not an independent application of mind by the 2%¢ respondent "before issuing a notice. Indeed he hastens to add that 'the 2 gn ! respondent does have the power to issue noticé unider the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and call upon
- the petitioner to answer the queries whether there is any violation of Sections 79A & 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. But however. such an initiation -8- must be suo motto and not on the basis of the direction issued by an authority, who is not competent. to do So...
6. Mr. Narendra Prasad. learnéa. HCGP appearitig for the respondent supports issuance of notice as. well as directions issued by the Commission... He submits with reference to Section 82 of the Acé.that if it comes to the knowledge. of 'the ~ Competent. Authority that transactions are-m_ vioration of the Land Reforms Act and that such violation has come to the notice of the 24 respondent on the directions of the 1s! respondent -- Commission, fie is entitled to issue a notice. Hence, he os submits that the direction issued by the 1s! respondent ~~as.well-as the notice issued by the 2" respondent are well within their jurisdiction.
. 7. | have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. Before adverting to the contentions urged, it is necessary for us ~~. and inguire into a request from any applicant. if the to look into the provisions of the special enactment i.e...
Right to Information Act, 2005.
8, Indeed the object of the Righ ite Information Ack . is to provide for setting out ihe practical regime of Right to Information for citizens. "10 "secure access to information under the 'control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and ac "ountability in the working of every public euthority. A perusal of the Act does not" indicate that thie powers of the State Commission or the Central 'Commission would stem from Sectioi 18 of the A&t, Section 18 of the Act would : "speak 7 about the "powers and functions of the : Information: Colamission. It specifically speaks about the fact that the Commission is empowered to receive ° Public Information Officer has not furnished the : required information or where there is no response to a request for information or access to any information within the time limit specified under the Act, who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, "that such a direction certainly could not have been other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. A perusal ot the provisions of Section 18 including Sub-Sections (2) & (3) of the Act does not give an indication thal he is vested with the power or the j urisdiction to direct atiy ot her officer to initiate enquiry under any other enactinent.
9. Indeed. in the. case on hand, a perusal of 7 Annexures "B! & °G dated To. 1.2008 and 22.01.2008 respectively would clearly, disclose that the Commission has travelled beyena. thé jurisdiction and has directed
- the Revere Authorities to initiate enquiry as to : whetiier the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Indeed I am of the view issued inasmuch as the State Information Commission ~.acts only in the capacity of an Appellate Authority inasmuch as if the Public Information Officer does not supply any information, the State Information Conmiission carn certainly look into it and direct the
-|l-
Public Information Officer to | supply the © said information. A perusal of the application "of the respect of the declarations, which. are filed by. the-
petitioner under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and other related items. I the Public Information Officer is in possession of the said i aformation, he would certainly give it. Tf he: is "not "in" possession of the said information, certair ly. an endorsement can be issued indicating tik "the "said - information cannot be furnished. The Commission is only required to see whether ihe endorsement issued by the Public Informatien Officer is in confirmity with the Act and whether the: information, which is sought has been | deliberately withheld or is not furnished within the time o specified under the Act, nothing more and nothing less. Hence. I am of the view that the 1% respondent has travelled beyond the powers. which are conferred on him by the Act. In fact if there is any violation of the provisions of the Act by the Public luormation Officer, 4 what are the penalties which can be imposed by the Is : respondent is also to be found in Section 20 of the Right. penalty, Such penalty can be 'imposed only if the information is denied mala lidely or knowingly giving incorrect information.» iricomplete or 'misleading information or destroved information: which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information. ---
16. 'This. / lakes cus to the provisions of the Kamataka Land Reforms Aet. Indeed Sections 79A and 798 have been. brought on statute pursuant to Act : 4] j1974 with effect from 01.03.1974. Indeed it would deal. with the restrictions on holding or transfer of agricultural lands. It would impose certain stringent conditions as to who can hold agricultural land *-inasmuch as he should basically be an agriculturist or developer of the land. Section 79B of the Act is in 1 abe 1 respect of reporting of illegal transactions. It is to be noticed that it is within the powers of every Village - Officer and every Officer of the Revenue. Registration and Land Records Departments: to report, | to he prescribed authority. every transaction in respect of any land, which in its view isin violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act... Indeed ne such violation was brought to the "netice of the axl "tespondent. But however, the State Information Commission took it upon itself and presumed that there is a violation of the provisions of the . Karnataka Land Reforms Act and _ directed the 2™¢ respondent to hold an enquiry. It is no
- : doubt rue that it is submitted that the Tahsildar i.e, the 2 respondent has made a report. But however. "once again, the said report is on the basis of a direction issued. Consequently. Iam of the view that the notice
- issued by the 2"¢ respondent under the Land Reforms . Act is liable to be quashed and so also the proceedings before the 1* respondent. Hence, the following order:
{a} Petition stands allowed.
_|q-
(b) The notice issued at Annexure f° under: the.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act stands cuashed, confined only to the information, which is | sought for by the applicant.
(d) It is open for ihe respondents 2 and 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Karnataka Land. Reforms 'Act - if "they. find that the petitioner 'has violated the provisions of 4 Sections 79A & 7 OB of the Act.
Rule is issued and made absolute to the extent indicated above...
22. Mr.Narendra Prasad. learned HCGP appearing forthe respondents is permitted to file memo of ~. appearance within four weeks, Sd / JUDGE SPS