IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.6322/2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI S SUNDARESH S/O LATE SURYANARAYANARAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.216 6TH MAIN ROAD, NRUPATUNGA NAGAR J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 076 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. UNDER SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND GRANTS-I) M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.14815/2017.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 13th October 2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.14815/2017. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the impugned show cause notice dated 01.04.2017 issued to the appellant by the State Government to show cause as to why the grant of 4 acres of land made to him on 22.04.2013 should not be cancelled. The learned Single Judge has also declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the State Government directing the Lokayukta to hold a detailed enquiry in respect of the aforesaid grant of 4 acres of land to the appellant.
2. We have heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
3. In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant had challenged the aforesaid show cause notice dated 01.04.2017 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (‘the Rules’ for short) and also the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the State Government referred to above.
4. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned show cause notice is unsustainable in law as several observations made therein will show that there is premeditation on the part of the State Government and no purpose would be served by filing the reply. In support of his contention, he referred to two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC 33] and in Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2010) 13 SCC 427]. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the impugned show cause notice is contrary to several decisions of this Court and also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents supported the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal.
6. We have considered the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties in the light of the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above.
7. It is a settled position in law that ordinarily, a writ court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless it is without jurisdiction or it is issued with premeditation.
8. In our opinion, the notice to show cause cannot be said to be without jurisdiction as it is issued by the State Government in exercise of the power under Rule 25 of the Rules. Rule 25 of the Rules reads as follows:
“25. Cancellation of grant.– (1) Any grant of land made under these rules shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to these rules:
Provided that no such cancellation shall be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard.
(2) Where any violation of the condition of grant or lease of land comes or is brought to the notice of a Revenue Officer, such officer shall forthwith report the violation to the officer competent to cancel the grant or lease as the case may be. The competent officer shall after giving the grantee or lessee an opportunity to be heard cancel the grant and resume the land to the Government free from all encumbrances.”
9. The notice also does not suffer from the vice of premeditation. The observations made therein are only prima facie views. In this context, it is relevant to extract the penultimate para of the show cause notice:
“Under these circumstances; prima facie being of the view; Government intends and seeks to cancel the said grant, in exercise of its powers under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grants Rules and; hence, this show cause notice to you; to show cause as to why the grant made on 22-04-2013 in respect of land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.129[old no 51] of Srigandadakaval village; Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore be cancelled.”
10. It is also appropriate to refer to the following observations made by the learned Single Judge in declining to interfere with the show cause notice and the order directing an enquiry by the Lokayukta:
“56. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot injunct and pre- empt the fresh enquiry in the matter sought to be initiated by the Respondent State by issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice on 01/04/2017 and directing an enquiry by Lokayukta under the provisions of Section 7(2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 by an order passed on 15/04/2017. ……………………….……………………………………………….
57. This Court does not find the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 01/04/2017 nor the order for enquiry by Lokayukta dated 15/04/2017 to be either wholly without jurisdiction or tainted with any malice-in-law or malice-in-fact, so as to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Show Cause Notice as well as the order of enquiry appear to be in bona-fide and fair exercise of the powers vested in the State to go to the bottom of the whole transaction and the claims made by the family of late S. Suryanarayana Rao, the self-acclaimed Freedom Fighter and to examine the entitlement of grant, which itself being highly belated or doubtful, the manner in which the subsequent grant of alternative land in the year 2013 was given in favour of the son, Mr. S. Sundaresh, the present petitioner, who has carried on this long chain of litigation for the last 30 to 40 years, deserves to be thoroughly investigated and inquired into. The State’s largesse or the precious lands of the State can neither be allowed to be frittered away in the garb of respect to the Freedom Fighter, nor it can be allowed to be surreptitiously parted in favour of the private parties for extraneous considerations.
58. ………………………………………………………… The matter deserves to be inquired by the Respondent State and by the Hon’ble Lokayukta under the impugned order of inquiry dated 15/04/2017.”
11. Having regard to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in appeal. At this stage, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel prays for three months’ time to the appellant to reply to the show cause notice on the ground that the appellant had to go through several documents from the year 1967. Having regard to the facts of the case, the prayer is accepted. Three months’ time from today is granted to file the reply. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. In view of disposal of the appeal, IA Nos.2 and 3 of 2017 filed for interim stay do not survive for consideration; they stand disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.