IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO.2748 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O M. MUNISWAMAPPA WORKING AS TAHSILDAR KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 009 2. B. DIVAKARA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O D N BANAPPA WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR JIGANI – I HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS (BY SMT SUVARNA M L ADVOCATE FOR SRI PUTTA GOWDA K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT & EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 4TH FLOOR, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS VINAYAKA NAGAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU – 562 106 4. TAHSILDAR ANEKAL VINAYAKA NAGAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU – 562 106 5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL VINAYAKA NAGAR, ANEKAL BENGALURU – 562 106 6. MANJUNATH DASAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO.364-365, 9TH MAIN J.P. NAGAR 4TH PHASE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU – 560 078 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, SMT MUKAMBIKA BHAT FOR SRI C M NAGABHOOSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6) *** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAUING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL EXPUNGE THE ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS MADE AGAINST THEM IN THE ORDER DATED 05/07/2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.27089/2019 AT PARAS 11 AND 12, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first to fifth respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent on IA.No.1/2019.
2. IA.No.1/2019 is filed for grant of leave to prefer an appeal by the appellants, who are not the parties to the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the directions contained in Paragraph-12 of the impugned order dated 5th July 2019 passed in W.P. No.27089/2019, which reads thus:
“In that view of the matter, this Court feel it is appropriate that an enquiry is required to be initiated against the conduct of Mr. Manjunath, the Special Tahsildar and also Mr. Diwakar, the Revenue Inspector. Therefore, this Court would direct the Principal Revenue Secretary to keep the aforesaid two officers under suspension after following due procedure and thereafter initiate departmental enquiry to enquire into their conduct in trying to meddle with the implementation of the order of this Court thereby disobeying the order of this Court which amounts to contempt of Court, while doing so, also trying to subvert the undertaking given by the superior officers.”
(underline supplied) 4. The appellants are the two officers against whom the learned Single Judge has directed the Principal Revenue Secretary to take action of suspension and to initiate departmental enquiry. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the appellants are trying to meddle with the implementation of the order of this Court thereby disobeying the order which amounts to contempt of Court and they are also trying to subvert the undertaking given by the superior officers.
5. As the appellants are affected by the impugned order, a case is made out to grant leave to appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, the leave to prefer an appeal is granted. Accordingly, IA No.1/2019 is allowed.
6. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the appeal, we have taken up the appeal for final disposal.
7. The 6th respondent is the writ petitioner, who is represented by the learned counsel. The learned Addl. Government Advocate represents the respondent Nos.1 to 5. The Respondent No.6 is the writ petitioner, who filed the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the endorsement made by the Assistant Director of Land Records and Special Tahsildar concerning the schedule land. A writ of mandamus was prayed to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to rectify / modify the survey records and issue a modified Akarbandh as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition.
8. In this appeal, we are not concerned with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge on merits. We are concerned with the directions issued and finding recorded in Paragraph-12 of the impugned order as well as the observations in Paragraph 11 of the impugned order. Apart from the directions issued in Paragraph-12, there are certain observations made in Paragraph-11 against certain Government officers.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for parties, we are of the view that what is held in Para-12 was not warranted at all. Even the other observations made against the appellants are also not warranted.
10. A drastic order has been passed by the learned Single Judge to keep the appellants under suspension and to initiate departmental enquiry. The appellants were not the parties to the writ petition in their individual capacity. Without making them as parties, a drastic order has been passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Principal Revenue Secretary to keep the appellants under suspension and to conduct departmental enquiry. Even observations made in Paragraph-12 that the conduct of the appellants amounts to contempt of Court and that the appellants are trying to subvert the undertaking given by the superior officers, are not at all warranted for the simple reason that a person who is guilty of contempt of Court can be penalized by sending him to jail. Therefore, the finding that conduct of the appellants amounts to contempt of Court without issuing a notice to them, is also not warranted.
11. Even if the directions contained in Paragraph-12 are set aside, the power of the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellants remains unaffected which could be exercised in accordance with law. Similarly, if Respondent No.6 wants to agitate that appellants have committed contempt of Court, it is always open for him to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. We are also make it clear that the observations made in paragraph-11 of the impugned order shall not be treated as any adverse findings, against the appellants.
12. Accordingly, the appeal must succeed and we pass the following order:
(i) The directions issued in paragraph-12 of the impugned order against the Principal Revenue Secretary are hereby quashed and set aside. We clarify that appropriate authority of the State Government, notwithstanding this order, can always initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the appellants;
(ii) The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the conduct of the appellants amounts to contempt of Court is also set aside. We clarify that in the event any of the parties are of the view that the appellants have committed deliberate breach of the order of the Court or undertaking given to the Court, appropriate proceedings in accordance with law can always be filed;
(iii) We make it clear that we have not disturbed the findings recorded on merits of the case and directions issued in the impugned order.
(iv) Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VK