Dismissed

O. C.Krishnappa v. Karnataka Lokayuktha Represented by

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2021WP/53648/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Upa-Lokayukta report recommending removal of unauthorized encroachment and khata entry correction. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi and the Lokayukta, while issuing recommendations rather than directions, used powers intended to protect the widow allottee.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondents directed to comply with Lokayukta recommendation within four weeks.

O. C.Krishnappa Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Represented by — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.53648 OF 2017 (GM-KLA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

O.C. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OORUKERE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶14

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶15

GRAM PANCHAYATH, OORUKERE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

SMT. GANGAMMA CLAIMING TO BE THE WIFE OF ASHWATHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OORUKERE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATII, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE FORM OF REPORT OF THE UPA LOKAYUKTHA DATED 11.7.2017 AN AUTHENTICATED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner then a member of the 4^th Respondent Graham Panchayat is knocking at the doors the Writ Court for assailing the Upa-Lokayukta report dated 11.7.2017 at Annexure-P and Govt. letter dated 9.8.2017 at Annexure-R which inter alia recommended for the removal of unauthorized encroachment of the subject house and put the allottee namely the 5^th respondent widow in its occupation after repairing the khata entries in the property records.

¶24

After service of notice, the respondent Lokayukta is represented by its Panel Counsel; respondent Nos.2 & 3 namely the Zilla Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat have remained unrepresented despite service of notice; respondent No.4-Grama Panchayat and the respondent No.5-allottee are represented by their private advocate; both the Lokayukta

¶25

¶26

and respondent Nos.4 & 5 have filed separate Statements of Objections, resisting the Writ Petition; they make submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶28

(a) The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta does not have power to issue directions enforceable proprio vigor is legally untenable & factually incorrect; the impugned orders going by their text & context cannot be construed as containing any direction at all; they specifically employ the Kannada word ‘shifaarasu’ which in English means recommendation; thus, this contention fails; whether a direction can be issued in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, does not merit consideration, there being no requisite factual foundation emerging from the record.

¶29

(b) The second submission that petitioner has obtained Form 10 Certificate u/s 55(1) of the Karnataka Land

¶30

¶31

Reforms Act, 1961 on 6.3.1982 and therefore, the khata of the house in question cannot be directed to be issued in favour of the 5^th respondent widow, is unsustainable to say the least when the property comprised in Form 10 being apparently different from the one comprised in the subject recommendations of the Lokayukta and the direction of the Govt. for consideration of its compliance; Form 10 apparently comprises of an agricultural land in view of registration of occupancy u/s 45 r/w 45A of the 1961 Act; however, the house in question is a small structure that was allotted to the husband of the 5^th respondent, who is now dead & gone.

¶32

¶33

of learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 that the petitioner being then a member of the Gram Panchayat in question has been troubling the 5^th respondent lady who is widowed; whether the house in question was granted to her husband, need not detain the court any longer when there is abundant material available on record to that effect; even otherwise, petitioner is alien to the allotment of the said house and therefore, he need not bother about whether there

¶34

¶35

was such an allotment to the original allottee and whether the 5^th respondent happens to be his widow.

¶36

(d) The impugned orders made under the Statute of the State have brought about a just result intended to protect the widow of the allottee and that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to lay a challenge thereto; his grievance that he ought to have been issued notice before the subject recommendations were made, is absolutely untenable; records reveal that notice to other concerned was issued and only thereafter the action is recommended; petitioner is only officious meddler and an interloper who should be levied with exemplary costs; however, this court refrains from levying any with the fond hope that he would not trouble the 5^th respondent widow any longer.

¶37

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being absolutely without any merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is, however, costs having been reluctantly made easy; the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 shall accomplish the task in terms of the recommendation of the Hon’ble UpaLokayukta within a period of four weeks and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court; delay may

¶38

¶39

result into levy of heavy costs personally payable to the 5^th respondent by the erring officials of the answering respondents, should delay be brooked, on an application being moved in this regard.

¶40

Now, no costs.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

cbc

O. C.Krishnappa v. Karnataka Lokayuktha Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O. C.Krishnappa v. Karnataka Lokayuktha Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

All India Union Bank Officer'S Federation Vs Union Bank of India

M.G. Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Qball Max Sports Center Vs State of Karnataka

K T Pushpalatha Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative

New Horizon Educational and Cultural Trust Vs the Senior Sub Registrar

Smt. Manjula Vs State of Karnataka