Sri Jayaramaiah vs State of Karnataka and Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ Petitioner claims 10 be a person who is armed with an ex parte judgment and decree against the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, State of Karnataka - by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, in respect of an extent of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 41 of Konappana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, as per judgment and decree dated 12.12.2001 passed in OS No. 464 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Addl. II Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

Submission of Sri. Shivanna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the State, in fact, had filed an appeal against; this judgment and decree under which the Petitioner''s title to the suit had been declared and a permanent restraint order passed against the Defendants by filing RA No. 35 of 2003 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, but that appeal also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 9.7.2006; that in this state of affairs, the judgment and decree has become final and when the Petitioner based on this judgment and decree applied to the revenue authorities, i.e. the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, as per the application dated 13.7.2006 (copy at Annexure-A), the Tahsildar has remained inactive and therefore the Petitioner had once earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition in WP No. 13242 of 2006 and this writ petition was allowed by this Court directing the Tahsildar to consider the case of the Petitioner therein as per the representation dated 13.7.2006 in accordance with law within a period of three months.

It is thereafter that the Petitioner has approached this Court again complaining that the Tahsildar is still inactive and therefore he is seeking for the relief in the present writ petition.

It is to be noticed that though the suit contained only two Defendants, namely, the Special Deputy Commissioner and the State of Karnataka - by its Revenue Secretary, in the present writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner is arrayed as second Respondent and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development. Board as fourth Respondent who are additional Respondents.

It is also to be noticed that there is intervening circumstance, in the sense, that the subject land had already been acquired in favour of the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 way back in the year 1996 as can be inferred from the representation dated 9.10.2010 from the very Petitioner addressed to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore and that the subject land had been acquired by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for formation of second stage of Electronic City etc.,.

Mr. Shivanna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the absence of the revenue entries being mutated in the name of the Petitioner, it has become a problem for the Petitioner to claim compensation amount from the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and it is primarily for this reason the Petitioner is active for ensuring that the revenue records are mutated in the name of the Petitioner pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the civil court; that it is the bounden duty of the revenue authorities to mutate the revenue entries in accordance with the determination by the civil court.

While legal position is undoubtedly so, it is very obvious that the judgment and decree passed by the civil court suffers from a mistake of fact. Even as admitted by the very Petitioner, if the subject land had been acquired in the year 1996 under the statutory provisions and the State had become the owner, a judgment and decree obtained by suppressing these facts and that too an ex parte decree before the civil court followed by dismissal of the appeal of the State for default only points a collusive finger not only at the Petitioner but also the officials concerned and also the Presiding Officers who have rendered such Judgments and decrees.

There is absolutely no application of mind on the part of either the revenue authorities or even the Judges in the civil court and more so when the Respondent is a State and the celebrated Special Deputy Commissioner is a Defendant to a suit whose office is in synonym with corruption, nepotism and all sorts of illegal activities in the name of exercising statutory powers.

Repealed issue of a writ of mandamus is no solution for a situation where this Court had once issued a writ of mandamus and there is inaction on the part of the authorities against whom a writ had been issued. If one writ of mandamus has not been obeyed by the public authority, such a person complaining about and seeking for another writ to be issued for the very purpose is nothing short of bringing to ridicule the authority of this Court and virtually allowing a public authority to mock on the orders and directions issued by the High Court. In a system governed by rule of law under the constitutional and statutory provisions, such a thing cannot happen. If a public authority disobeys or disregards an order passed by this Court or direction issued by this Court it does so only on the pain of visiting punishment in contempt jurisdiction.

With whatever reasons the Petitioner has come to this Court yet again who has revealed himself about the developments leading to the present writ petition, it is a tell tale story of the manner in which public institutions are misused and abused by unscrupulous persons. It is to be noticed that the subject land was one which had been granted in favour of the Petitioner and as submitted by Sri. Shivanna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the said person being a person who was a land less person and therefore the land was granted for cultivation etc.

Even as per the representation that grant is claimed to have been made during the year 1978-79 on the basis that the Petitioner was cultivating the land from the year 1952-53 and the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the Petitioner as per MR 57/1982-83 and as to whether the existence or otherwise of such persons cannot be gone into in the present writ petition, the Petitioner appears to have succeeded before the courts below only by default and not on merits. In such matters, the High Court while exercising discretionary jurisdiction, cannot and should not act to encourage illegal activities its entertaining such writ petitions only sends wrong signal to such persons and so the matter requires to be scrutinized and examined in a different jurisdiction and for different purpose.

In the circumstances, while this writ petition for the purpose of the relief sought for cannot be ordered, the first Respondent - State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Revenue Department, is hereby directed to hold an enquiry into the circumstances under which the subject land had been granted and continued in the name of the Petitioner and as to how the State and the Special Deputy Commissioner in gross dereliction of their duty, in the first instance, did not defend the suit in a proper manner before the civil court and later allowed their own appeal before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, to be dismissed for default, which only points a collusive act on the part of the officials or even more persons with the Petitioner.

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this order not only to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka. Bangalore, but also to the Karnataka Lokayukta for holding an independent inquiry at its end for scrutinizing the conduct, past and present of the officials who are responsible for bringing about such orders.

The conduct of the judicial officers who are responsible for rendering the judgment and decree in OS No. 464 of 2001 before the Addl. II Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the dismissal of the appeal in RA No. 35 of 2003 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore are also required to be scrutinized and therefore the Registrar General of this Court is further directed to place a copy of this order before the learned Judge who is incharge of the administration of the District either as it was at the point of time when the orders were passed or before the learned Judge in whose jurisdiction, the Judicial Officers are serving now for holding a proper inquiry, scrutiny into the conduct of the Judicial Officers also.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner to work out his rights and remedies elsewhere, in accordance with law.