IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.5834/2018 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDINGS DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-4 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (REGISTRATION & STAMPS) DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI GIRISHCHANDRA SON OF SRI G. VEERABHADRAYYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 076 RESIDING AT NO.113, FLAT NO.3, "MANTRALAYA" APARTMENTS J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;
SMT. SHILPA.S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2700/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The respondent No.2 in application No.2700/2017 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) have come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 20.11.2017, where the order of the competent authority – first respondent in the said proceedings in imposing penalty of compulsory retirement against the applicant before the Tribunal is set aside on the ground that alternate remedy of Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 was available to the complainant and as such, the enquiry report in holding the delinquent employee guilty of the charges framed against him is set aside.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:
The allegations or accusation against the applicant before the Tribunal is that while he was discharging his duty as Sub-Registrar in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Raichur, had collected less stamp duty and registration fee on a registered sale deed dated 21.05.2007 executed for a non-agricultural converted land and thereby caused huge revenue loss to the State and the said act is for extraneous consideration. Admittedly, the allegation is by a person by name K.Bhimanna, who was at logger heads with the co-owner of the vendor under the sale deed and there were litigations pending between them before the Senior Civil Judge, Raichur in O.S.No.24/2000. Thereafter, the same was subject matter in RFA.No.660/2006 before the Division Bench of this Court at Kalaburagi.
3. It is stated that the complainant’s partner, who is the defendant No.1 in the said suit had sold a portion of the property belonging to them in favour of Vijaykumar and Venkatesh. The said purchasers having purchased half share from complainant’s partner filed suit for partition in O.S.No.21/2007. The said suit decreed and during pendency of RFA.No.660/2006, the plaintiffs have sold the land under registered sale deed dated 21.05.2007. The aforesaid transaction was tried to be projected by the complainant as a transaction where the second respondent herein working as a Sub-Registrar in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Raichur has committed misconduct of registering the document by under valuing the same resulting in loss of revenue to the State.
4. Admittedly, the said transaction is with reference to a large extent of 1 acre of land which is said to be undeveloped land. It is in the aforesaid background, the Sub-Registrar has accepted the value of the said land to the extent of Rs.21/- per sq.ft. Undisputedly, the said transaction was the subject matter of adjudication before the competent authority-District Registrar under the Stamp Act, where the valuation done in the document is not accepted and the same is subjected to higher value and stamp duty was collected. Be that as it may.
5. It is in this background, based on the complaint lodged by K.Bhimanna, seeking an enquiry to be initiated against the conduct of the second respondent herein, which was entrusted to the second petitioner herein, wherein a report is given by the second petitioner to the effect that there is misconduct committed by the Government servant in accepting undervaluation of the property. In any event, the question of undervaluation has already been decided in an alternate proceedings which was conducted by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps under Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act and the deficit stamp duty was collected. Having accepted the same, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the competent authority in compulsorily retiring the second respondent based on the report of the second petitioner and also the recommendation of the Upa-Lokayuktha, which appears to be correct in the fact situation. Therefore, question of interference with the same does not arise. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
6. It is needless to state that the point of law as decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.N. RAVIPRAKASH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1360, would not apply to the facts of the case, considering the fact that the complaint is by a person involved in the litigation with the vendor of the transaction in question in order to settle personal score with the vendor. The same should not be allowed to be pursued in this writ petition.
7. It is needless to state that the relief given to the second respondent in this petition is purely on the facts of the case and not with reference to legal position where an attempt is being made by the complainant to settle score with the petitioner and the second respondent in the background of litigation between him and the vendor in the transaction which was the subject matter of investigation before the Lokayuktha.
8. In the instant case, the allegation made in the complaint would not attract any of the ingredients as seen in the definition to Section 2(2) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984. In that view of the matter, the judgment referred to supra, is distinguishable to the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA