H R Sathwik Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE FORM OF WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REPORT BEARING No. LOK/MYS/2947/2018/ARE-6 DATED 20.05.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LOKAYUKTHA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO SUBSEQUENT OFFICE COMMUNICATION MADE BY 2^ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1^ST RESPONDENT BEARING No. D.O.No. COMPT/LOK/MYS/2947/2018/ARE-6 DATED 02.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:37281-DB WP No. 31321 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶35

Heard Mr. Leeladhar.H.P, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶36

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') as well as the recommendation made therein for cancellation of Hakku Pathra dated 02.01.2018 issued in favour of petitioner in respect of land measuring 60ft X 40 ft in Sy.No.33 (new Sy.No.193) of Chenniga village, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur District.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not served with notice before making this recommendation by the Lokayukta and he had not been given an opportunity to present his case in respect of the legality of the Hakku Pathra.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:37281-DB WP No. 31321 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the Lokayuktha gives him an opportunity of hearing to place the evidence and submissions in his favour and thereafter, the Lokayukta may make recommendation in respect of the Hakku Pathra dated 02.01.2018 as it may deem it appropriate. He therefore, submits that the aforesaid direction - (c) in the report dated 20.05.2020 may be set aside and the matter be remanded back in respect of the petitioner for giving him an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter may make an appropriate recommendation.

¶42

Mr. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Lokayukta does not have much objection for granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, to make fresh recommendation as the Lokayukta deems fit, after hearing the petitioner and examining the evidence.

¶43

We, therefore, set aside the direction - (c) of the report dated 20.05.2020 made by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act and remand the matter back in respect of the petitioner to give him an opportunity of hearing for allowing

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37281-DB WP No. 31321 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

him to place on record supporting evidence in respect of the validity and legality of the Hakku Pathra dated 02.01.2018. After considering the evidence of the petitioner and hearing him, the Lokayukta may make fresh recommendation as it deems fit.

¶47