1 ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.1386 OF 2019 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN SRI N GANGADHARA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, HOYSALA ROAD, 4TH CROSS, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560016. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560016. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DINESH RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITONER'S REQUEST FOR GRANT OF CONVERSION FOR 24 GUNTAS OF CULTIVABLE LAND AS WELL AS 17 GUNTAS OF 'A' KHARAB LAND IN SURVEY NO.62/1-C OF DEVASANDRA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-
ORDER When this matter was heard on 23.4.2019, an order was passed directing the present Joint Director of Land Records Smt. Kusumalatha P.S. to carry out correction in survey record of land bearing SY.No.62/1C of Devasandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Today she would bring to the notice of this Court the correction carried out by her in Tippani book as well as Akarband and Pakka book of Sy.No.62/1C of Devasandra Village, in rectifying the mistake which was done by some of the Officers of Survey Department in the year 1999. As could be seen from the records, the location of the aforesaid land was disturbed in changing its position as it stood in the survey records on 14.03.1981, in wrongfully showing that the same as moved from its original position to its right and the same being placed on kalmaratti kharab portion in the said land.
2. This Court would place on record its appreciation for the interest shown by learned Addl. Advocate General Sri Dinesh Rao, without his intervention the aforesaid correction would definitely not have taken place within such short span of time. This Court would also place on record its appreciation for the correction work carried out by the present JDLR.
3. In this proceedings the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 8.4.2019, complaining that, the previous JDLR K.Jayaprakash whom petitioner had approached seeking correction to the wrongful entry made in the year 1999. The allegation of the petitioner is that the then JDLR had demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner as bribe to rectify the mistake committed by earlier officers in the year 1999. It is also stated that in the absence of petitioner fulfilling his demand the said person vengefully created records in such a manner that as if the entire exercise which he did in confirming the wrongful entry made during 1999 is pursuant to a report submitted by the Tahsildar, thereafter the same being approved by the Government. The aforesaid conduct of the officer shows the ingenuity with which he would operate in shifting the responsibility for his work on others, simultaneously projecting himself as an honest officer.
4. When entire material available on record is viewed, this Court has no doubt regarding the allegation against the then JDLR Jayaprakash. However, whether there was demand for money, if so for what amount, whether it was demand for Rs.20,00,000/- as alleged by the Petitioner is required to be ascertained through proper investigation to be conducted by competent authority. However, the said allegation is opposed by the delinquent officer Sri.Jayaprakash represented by learned Additional Advocate General Sri Dinesh Rao. He would contend that, the said allegation and accusation is false. He would contend that, if at all the same were to be genuine, nothing prevented the petitioner from immediately approaching the higher-ups or placing the same before this Court. This court would pause for a while and observe that in fact, learned counsel Sri Nagaiah on the very first instance when the matter was taken up for consideration, did mention that the order impugned is passed by the Officer K.Jayaprakash due to non fulfillment of his illegal demand. He was hesitant to submit the nature of demand. Then this Court insisted that unless the same is placed on record, this Court is not in a position to access entire material. Thereafter the affidavit of the petitioner is filed on 8.4.2019.
5. At this juncture, the court would further observe that the demand for bribe by the Government officers is neither new nor shocking in as much as it has become order of the day. Therefore, to expect the common man either to go to police or to lodge complaint to higher authorities cannot be expected under all circumstances. In as much as the scenario is in no way different in both places. It is in this background, the victims feel comfortable to come to the Court as last resort where they can come out with all the accusation in a free and unbiased atmosphere.
6. It is in this background it is stated by Sri Nagaiah, learned counsel that he has made such accusation and allegation against Mr.Jayaprakash. In any event, considering the manner in which the order is passed raises a doubt in the mind of this Court. Therefore the accusation which is made cannot be brushed aside by putting it under the carpet as if it is a routine, meaningless and purposeless allegation or accusation.
7. Hence, the same is required to be enquired into by a competent authority which is constituted by the State in the form of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Therefore this Court would direct that entire record be sent to ACB for conducting of enquiry against Sri K. Jayaprakash. The Investigation Officer of ACB, after investigation shall bring to the notice of this Court, the final report prepared, which shall be done within 90 days from the date of receipt of this copy. Thereafter, the final decision will be taken by this court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his client had to suffer because of the impugned order in as much as his application for conversion has been rejected. Now that the stigma under the impugned order is removed and position of the land is correctly shown as it is in existence, same would not come in the way of the petitioner seeking conversion of his land in accordance with the procedure prescribed for grant of conversion from agricultural land to non agricultural purposes.
9. The xerox copies of the original record produced in this Court is also placed on record by learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Venkatesh Dodderi.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
sac* Sd/- JUDGE