Allowed

Sri. M. Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024WP/15372/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tahsildar challenged State permission for corruption enquiry over a saguvali chit he issued following the Regularization Committee's regularization order. Following a Co-ordinate Bench decision on identical circumstances, the Court quashed the Section 17A permission.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.07.2022 permitting enquiry/investigation under Section 17A PC Act is quashed.

Sri. M. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26633 WP No. 15372 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15372 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M. RAJANNA S/O. LATE MADDURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 38/1, 1^ST CROSS, BYRAVESHWARANAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.08 11:36:48 +0530

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, GENERAL OF POLICE, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 SRI. B B PATIL.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:26633 WP No. 15372 of 2022

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTCILES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.7.2022 ANNEXURE-H; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.7.2022 BEARIGN O.KUME 66 ADE 2021 ISSUED BY R-1 ANNEXURE-H AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has impugned the first respondent's Order dated 14.07.2022, and the first respondent by this order has permitted enquiry/investigation against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short, 'PC Act' ]. The first respondent, as regards the reason for this permission, has recorded that the petitioner, as the previous Tahsildar of Devanahalli Taluk, has granted

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:26633 WP No. 15372 of 2022

¶24

land measuring 3 acres in Sy. No.31 of Mudugurki Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk [the subject property] to a certain Venkataramanappa, son of Achappa and had issued Saguvali Chit on 21.03.2018 while observing that such grant is contrary to law. Sri. Satish K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought for disposal of the petition relying upon the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.24073/2022 which is decided on 01.06.2023.

¶25

Therefore, the petitioner's grievance with the impugned Order dated 14.07.2022 is examined in the light of the Co-ordinate Bench's reasoning. The Co-ordinate Bench, while recording that the petitioner in such case was working as Tahsildar Grade-I and was also Ex-Officio Secretary [Member Secretary] of the Regularization Committee, has

¶26

opined that because of the provisions of Section 96-A[6][a] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:26633 WP No. 15372 of 2022

¶29

a Tahsildar will have no option but to issue saguvali chit in terms of the Committee’s orders for regularization and that this would be the fall out of the provisions of Rule 108-D[3] of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The Co-ordinate Bench has further opined that unless the afore circumstances were examined, permission under Section 17A of the PC Act could not have been issued.

¶30

The petitioner in this case as well was working as Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk, and as such, was officiating as the Member Secretary of the concerned Regularization Committee. The petitioner contends that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by Sri Venkataramanappa [ the Claimant ] with directions to place the claimant's request for regularization of unauthorized possession of the subject land before the Regularization Committee. This Committee by its decision dated 16.03.2018 has issued orders for

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:26633 WP No. 15372 of 2022

¶33

regularization, and consequently, the petitioner has issued Saguvali Chit [Form No.7] on 21.03.2018. The petitioner also contends that he was relieved from the post of Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk and he has retired from service with effect from 31.05.2021 when he working as Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶34

It is obvious from the reading of the

¶35

impugned order that the first respondent has not considered that the issuance of Form No.7 is consequent to the decision of the Regularization Committee and that the petitioner as the Member Secretary was bound in law to issue saguvali chit as observed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. For reasons of parity, the petition must be allowed quashing the first respondent's impugned Order dated 14.07.2022. Hence the following:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:26633 WP No. 15372 of 2022

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed, and the first respondent's impugned order dated 14.07.2022 [Annexure-H] is quashed.

¶40

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶41

AN/-

Sri. M. Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Siddaiah Vs the Secretary

Dr Priya N (M.Sc., Ph.D) Vs the National Assessment and Accreditation

G M Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Bengaluru City Pourakarmika Gangmen Union Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Malathi B Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri. Terence Francis Vs State of Karnataka