M.A. Parthasarathy v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District

Sri Amar Kumar, Advocate for M/s Lawyers INC for Petitioner;

Sri. Narendra Prasad, GP for R-1, Sri Venkata Reddy, Advocate for R.2-3 for Respondents;

Kumar, J.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a declaration that, the report submitted by the Karnataka Lokayukta as per Annexure— F is void, nonest and has no probative value and for quashing Annexure— G i.e, a notice under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the property bearing No. 1, 12th Cross, Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Sadashivnagar, Bangalore-560080, which is apart of 10 acres 28 guntas of land which has been purchased by the petitioner's father late M.A Srinivasan from the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore in the year 1953-1954 has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his family members for the last over 52 years uninterruptedly. Petitioner's father late M.A Srinivasan, died in the year 1998 at his ripe old age of 101. He was the Pradhan of the erstwhile State of Mysore, the Diwan of the erstwhile State of Gwalior, a member of the Constituent Assembly, a Chairman of the Kolar Gold Fields, the founder-president of the GMCI, a Chairman of the Consolidated Coffee Limited and the founder-director of the Air India International Limited. He was such a towering personality of quite a high public-profile and reputation, holding such high offices and positions. After his demise, the former Lokayukta has been pouring on him, as also on the petitioner, as avalanche of indignant accusations, vituperative references and boisterous-statements, touching on the high-profile, integrity and the reputation of his father, the deceased M.A Srinivasan and on him.

3. The petitioner was a Chairman of the Urban Arts Commission, a Member of Lalbagh Trust, a Member of the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, a Member of the U.N University, Tokyo, Japan, a trustee of the World-wide Foundation Nature in India and a recipient of the Global 500 Award. He has been residing in the property in question. In fact, petitioner and his father had to file several writ petitions before this Court making Lokayukta a party to those proceedings seeking protection to protect their property. In fact, in the writ petition No. 2199/2005 preferred by the petitioner against Lokayukta, the Commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagarapalike and the Commissioner of Police, after hearing all the parties, this Court passed an order on 16.6.2005 directing the second respondent officials not to enter upon the petitioner's property (beyond the fenced area of Sankey Tank). It was also made clear if, really there is a dispute in regard to the extent or otherwise, the parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law. In the writ petition, they have set-out in detail several writ petitions filed and the prayers made by them.

4. One V.S Ramamurty and G.V Muniraju filed a complaint before the Lokayukta on 4.6.2005 in the prescribed form against the Government of Karnataka, Forest Department, The Principal Secretary, the Government Industries and Commerce, the Commissioner of the Bangalore Mahanagarapalike, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District and the Secretary, Environment and Ecology, Bangalore complaining that the petitioner and his family members have encroached upon a part of Sankey Tank and thus have misused public property and therefore the Lokayukta should take action on the officials who are responsible for this injustice. The petitioner nor his father was made a party to the said complaint. The Lokayukta held an enquiry and submitted a report on 17.10.2005 produced at Annexure-F. He exonerated all the Government officials. However, he has recorded findings against the petitioner, his father in respect of their title to the property in dispute. The petitioner and his father are defamed, without any justification and behind their back. He has alleged legal malafides against the Lokayukta. In the said report, a direction is issued to the authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner in respect of his property. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner who was a witness in the said enquiry, has issued the impugned notice at Annexure— G purporting to be under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act calling upon the petitioner to appear and show cause why mutation entries made in his name in respect of the property in dispute should not be set-aside. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

5. The Lokayukta after service of summons, has entered appearance and has filed a detailed counter. He has denied the allegations regarding the ill-will made in the writ petition. In para, 6 of the Statement of Objections, he has stated as under:

“The 2nd respondent received a complaint from one V.S Ramamurthy and G.V Muniraju of Malleshwaram, Bangalore against'the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Principal Secretary, Industrial & Commerce Department, Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Secretary, Environment & Ecology, Bangalore and the same was registered as Compt/Lok/BCD-213/2005. During the course of enquiry it was revealed that late Sri M.A Srinivasan, the father of petitioner had illegally purchased 10.17 acres of government land from then Maharaja of Mysore violating the Land Revenue Code 1888 which was in force in old Mysore area till coming into force of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. After enquiry, this respondent submitted a report, dtd: 17/10/2005 to the Government after coming to the conclusion that late M.A Srinivasan who claims to have purchased the property from his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore derived no saleable or alienable right, title or interest in such Kharab lands and so also none of the heirs of the M.A Srinivasan or purchaser-alienees from M.A Srinivasan of such Kharab land derived any right, title or interest in it. There was no necessity to implead the petitioner or his father in the complaint filed by Sri V.S Ramamurthy and Sri G.V Muniraju as they are not public servants within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and the complaint was filed with a request to take action against the respondents in the said complaint, who are public servants, for their-in-action in protecting the Government property. There is no illegality in the report of this respondent and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought against this respondent in respect of the report submitted by him. The petition may be dismissed”.

6. Petitioner also filed a reply setting-out the legal position as well as the power of the Lokayukta.

7. Sri Amar Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the report and the notice issued contends that, the statement of objections coupled with the report submitted by the Lokayukta makes it abundantly clear that he has recorded a finding of fact holding the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had no title to the property in question and therefore, he could not have conveyed title to the petitioner's father. The petitioner's father acquired no title to the property and all of them are encroachers of the land in question. The Lokayukta under the Act has no jurisdiction to go into the question of a title dispute in respect of the immovable property belonging to private citizens of this Country. He had no jurisdiction to tarnish the fair name of persons who were not before him under the guise of holding an enquiry against public servants. When all the officials were exonerated, he had no jursidiction to submit any report to the Government for any follow-up action. Therefore, the Lokayukta has over-stepped its jurisdiction in recording such findings. From the material on record, it is clear that it is on the basis of the report of the Lokayukta, the proceedings are initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act which is wholly without jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner who initiated the proceedings was a witness in the enquiry conducted by the Lokayukta and a witness in an enquiry cannot be a Prosecutor and Judge under another enactment to decide the rights of the petitioner. All these findings are recorded behind the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. As is clear from the statement of objections, it is the stand of the Lokayukta that petitioner need not be heard, as he is not a public servant. Therefore, he submits as the findings recorded, observations made in the report, if allowed to stand would seriously dent the reputation of the petitioner's father and the petitioner, the said observations and finding recorded are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Lokayukta Sri M. Venkata Reddy contended that as admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the said enquiry, the findings recorded in the report are not binding on the petitioner and therefore, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. All that the Lokayukta has done is, that he has submitted a report to the Government and it is for the Government and the Governmental authorities to take action and that by itself will not give a cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the report. Lastly, it was contended that the action taken by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 136(3) of the Act is not based on the report of the Lokayukta, but it is on a complaint made by the complainants and therefore, it cannot be said that the report submitted by the Lokayukta has been abused.

9. Learned Government Advocate in support of the action taken submitted that under Sec. 136(3) of the Kamataka Land Revenue Act, the Deputy Commissioner has suo-motu power to initiate proceedings and merely because he has initiated proceedings after a complaint was received by him, that would in no way render the proceedings invalid.

10. Before proceeding to discuss the power of the Lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, it is necessary to briefly state the undisputed facts in this case.

11. The land measuring 10 acres 28 guntas which was having old Sy, No. 2, new sy.Nos 4 and 5 situated at Rajamahal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District was a part of large extent of land originally belonging to the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore. Under a registered sale deed dated 23.1.1953 and 29.11.1954 the said plot of land was purchased by the petitioner's father late Sri M.A Srinivasan for a valuable consideration from Maharaja of Mysore. The Government of Mysore notified the aforesaid lands along with other lands for acquisition for the formation of RMV Layout on 15.10.1959 Late Sri M.A Srinivasan preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the said acquisition in Writ Petition No. 354/1961. The Division Bench of this Court which had quashed similar Notification in the case of Dachiah Chetty v. State of Mysore 1961 Mysore Law Journal, 859. allowed the writ petition quashing the Notification and a direction was issued to the said Board to forbear from taking any further action on the strength of, and pursuant to, the said Notification and proceeding with the acquisition of the petitioner's lands sought to be acquired. Aggrieved by the said order in the writ petition, the State preferred a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India. Leave was granted. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the State entered into a compromise with late M.A Srinivasan. Under the terms of the compromise roads which were already formed by Shri. M.A Srinivasan was handed over to Erstwhile CITB free of cost. Thus the title of the said Shri. M.A Sreenivasan to the remaining extent of the land continued to be with him. The said judgment of the Apex Court was passed on 5 April 1968.

12. It is to be remembered that the Rajmahal Vilas Extension where the land was situated was part of Erstwhile State of Mysore. The very report of the Lokayukta ‘shows that the said land belongs to Erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore and his other family members. Even after independence the right of Maharaja to this land did not stand extinguished. It is only in 1971 when the Privy Purse was abolished, His Highness the Maharaja, lost his status. But even before that, as far back as in 1953-1954, the Maharaja had sold these lands to the petitioner's father. The material on record discloses that, petitioner's father was Pradhan of erstwhile State of Mysore, the Diwan of the erstwhile State of Gwalior, a member of the Constituent Assembly, Chairman of the Kolar Gold Fields, the Founder-President of G.M.C.I, Chairman of the Consolidated Coffee Ltd., and Founder-Director of the Air India International Ltd. His son, the petitioner herein, is the Chairman of Urban Arts Commission, a Member of Lalbagh Trust, a Member of the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, a Member of the U.N University, Tokyo, Japan, a trustee of the World-life Foundation Nature in India and a recipient of the Global 500 Award. After purchase of the land, the petitioner and his father have formed layouts, put up construction, fenced the property and they are living with their family members. This Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the Lokayukta and officials of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 16 June 2005 directed the officials of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike not to enter upon the petitioner's property beyond the fenced area of the Sankey Tank.

13. It is in this background the complaint dated 04.06.2005 filed by the complainant to Lokayukta has to be considered. The complaint in substance states that the Maharaja of Mysore had no right to the land, he was only entitled to the usufructs of the trees which were. grown in the said land, the petitioner and his father created sale deeds showing that the personal secretary of Maharaja had sold the property in dispute in their favour, they being very influential persons, high placed officials, they have prevailed upon the officials of the Departments to get their names entered in the revenue records, they are threatening the Corporation officials and therefore the officials are afraid of taking any action against them. If only any enquiry is made by summoning the officials, the truth will come out and it is a clear case of encroachment of public property by the petitioner. Therefore, they requested the Lokayukta to take action and take suitable action against the officials who are responsible for the same. The Lokayukta took cognizance of the said complaint and though no particular official was named in the complaint, examined one K.V Rudresh, Deputy Director, City Survey, Bangalore, A.S Patil, Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, N.R Rangaswamy Gowda, Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Ramegowda, Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban, Bangalore, Srihari, Addl.Commissioner & I/C Engineer-in-Chief, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, Channagangappa, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and recorded their statements. In the course of investigation 97 documents were marked. Thereafter, he recorded the following findings:

“Thus, when the Sankey's Tank's entire Kharab land of 313 Acres 33 Guntas in Survey No. 2 of the Rajmahal Village as reflected in the Survey Map Ex.C 14 as the property of the State Govt. as per the aforesaid provisions of Mysore Revenue Code, 1888 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, neither the State Government which was a trustee of Public Sankey's Tank nor any other person could be regarded as the one, which or who had power to validly alienate any portion of such kharab land of the Sankey's Tank. Consequently, any documents of alienations of 313 Acres 33 Guntas of Sankey's Tank's of Kharab Land including those of the originals of Sale Deeds Ex.C-34 and C.41, became ab-initio void.”

“Hence, the Sankey's Tank's Water Spread Area, its Water receiving Hallas, its fore-bed and its Catchment area could not have been alienated in favour of a private party, even by the State Government. If that be so, the private party like the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore who did not have and did not acquire any right, title or interest in the Sankey's Tank, as well as, its water spread area, its water receiving Hallas or its tank fore-bed, including its catchment area, had no right to alienate any portion of the land of 313 Acres 33 Guntas in Sy.No 2 of Rajmahal Vilas Village, including the 2 Acres 1 Gunta of Water Spread Area of Sankey's Tank, 2 Acres of Water receiving Kharab Hallas of the Sankey's Tank and 6 Acres 13 guntas of land, allegedly sold by him in favour of late Shri. M.A Sreenivasan under originals Sale Deeds of Ex.C-34 and Ex.C-41. As Shri. M.A Sreenivasan had derived no legal right, title or interest in respect of 10 acres 14 guntas of Kharab lands of Sankey's Tank, he did not have any right, title or interest in such lands to be conveyed as his heirs or anybody else, who are now trying to grab those kharab lands, by illegal means.”

“His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore had not retained any saleable interest with regard to Sankey's Tank's Water Spread Area of 2 Acres out of 55 Acres; 2 Acres 1 Gunta out of water receiving kharab Hallas of Sankey's Tank; and about 6 Acres 13 Guntas of Sankey's Tank's Fore-Bed and as per Ex.C.97 list of immovable properties within Bangalore City Municipality and Civil Station Area, he could not have sold Sankey's Tank's Water Spread Area of 2 Acres 1 Gunta on its northern side; 2 Acres out of water receiving kharab Hallas of Sankey's Tank on its further northern side; and about 6 acres 13 guntas of Sankey's Tank's Fore-Bed to its further north side up to Tumkur Bellary Road. Consequently, late Shri. M.A Sreenivasan, who claims to have purchased the above said areas from His Highness, the Maharaja of Mysore under the original sale deeds of Ex.C.34 and Ex.C.41, derived no saleable or alienable right, title or interest in such kharab lands. So also, none of the heirs of Shri. M.A Sreenivasan or purchasers/alienees from Shri. M.A Sreenivasan of such kharab lands derived any right, title or interest in them.”

“………waste weir level of Sankey's Tank restored by Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, is well in accordance with the details of Sankey's Tank's found in Serial Register of Tanks of Cauvery Basin Arkavathi Series and to its Full Tank Level (FTL) of 930.89 meters and the same has been done justly and accurately.”

“The Revenue Authorities have to take steps for recovery of possession of the lands occupied by the Farm House and roads leading to it, as also the sites and building of Shri. M.A Parthasarathy and Smt. Lakshmi Srivatsa on the eastern side of the land of water spread area of the Sankey Tank, since that should necessarily be the Water Spread Area of the Sankey tank, which could not have been purchased by Shri. M.A Sreenivasan and gifted by him or sold by him in favour of Smt. Lakshmi Srivatsa and Shri. M.A Parthasarathy, respectively.”

“…..Therefore, the land alleged to have been purchased by Shri. M.A Sreenivasan under the sale deed, original of Ex.C.41 cannot be other than the Water Spread Area of the Sankey's Tank.”

“Hence, there cannot be any iota of doubt that 22 guntas of land alleged to have been purchased by Shri. M.A Parthasarathy, from his father Shri. M.A Sreenivasan under the sale deed dated 19/11/197.1 is from the Water Spread Area of the Sankey's Tank towards north of the Sankey's Tank.”

“…..the area of the land which is said to have been bequeathed to M/s Singamma Sreenivasan Foundation, by Shri. M.A Sreenivasan under his Will dated 18/5/1993 cannot leave any doubt that it is the water spread area of the Sankey's Tank itself, when the water spread area of the Sankey's Tank is seen in coloured map Ex.C.87 in which water spread area is found in blue shade.”

“…..the prima facie finding of the Lokayukta on this sub-question or sub-issue is that 22 guntas of land said to have been purchased under the original sale deed dt. 19.11.1971 by Sri. M.A Parthasarathy from his father Shri. M.A Sreenivasan fall within the water spread area of Sankey's Tank, as described in the original Sale Deed of Ex.C.41 itself. So also, the area of the land said to have been bequeathed to M/s Singamma Sreenivasan Foundation under the Will dt. 18/5/1993 take within it, the water spread area of 55 acres area of Sankey's Tank purportedly purchased by the testator under the original sale deed of Ex.C-34, describing it in the sketch of that sale deed itself as 2 Acres of Kharab Hallas and the remaining area of 6 acres 13 guntas being at the fore-bed of the Sankey's Tank.”

“In the course of discussion, it is pointed out with reference to the property said to have been possessed by the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore at the time of merger of princely States of Mysore, that the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had absolutely no right, title or interest in the Sankey's Tank and its water spread area, its water receiving hallas and its fore-bed, in as much as, he had also not made any claim in that behalf as seen from the list of this private properties.”

“……it is not open for Shri. M.A Parthasarathy, who is said to have build his residential building in the portion of water spread area of the Sankey's Tank, in which he had no right, title or interest to claim that the present waste weir level of Sankey Tank, restored by Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to its FTL of 930.89 meters to have water spread area of 55 acres as detailed in Ex.C.12-Register of Tanks of Cauvery Basin, Arkavathi Series, to seek reduction in the waste weir level by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court, in as much as the writ jurisdiction could be invoked by persons who come only with clean hands and not by those who will seek to grab the public tank's water spread area, water receiving kharab Hallas or Tank's bed itself, as has been attempted by Shri M.A Sreenivasan, who was the Trustee of Maharaja's property.”

“…….it is not open to Shri. M.A Parthasarathy, who is said to have built his residential building in the earth filled portion of the water spread area of the Sankey's Tank in respect of which he had acquired no right, title or interest to claim that the present waste weir level of the Sankey's Tank should be reduced on the plea of a small portion of the basement of his unauthorized residential building is likely to be inundated when the water of the Sankey's Tank raises to Full Tank Level of 930.80 mtrs. So also, it is not open to him as the Chairman of M/s. Singamma Sreenivasan Foundation to claim that a portion of 2 acres 1 guntas of kharab water spread area of Sankey's Tank, 2 acres of Kharab Hallas of the tank and 1 acres 26 guntas of Kharab Sankey's Tank's bed in its mouth bequeathed to M/s Singamma Sreenivasan Foundation under Ex.C-22 (Shri. M.A Sreenivasan's Will dated 18.05.1993, while he died on 15/1/1998) is likely to be inundated when the Sankey's Tank is full with the water to be stored in Sankey's Tank, up to its Waste Weir level and therefore, Waste Weir level of the Tank is required to be reduced.”

“…….. Shri. M.A Parthasarathy is the son of late Shri. M.A Sreenivasan. He has filed Writ Petition No. 20728/2005 (LB) against the Commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for issue of mandamus to him to reduce the waste weir level of the Sankey's Tank restored by Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to the original level. In the Writ petition, while he has described himself as the Chairman of the Urban Arts Commission, Member of Lalbagh Trust, Member of International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Member of UN University, Tokyo, Trustee of World Wild Fund Fun Nature in India and recipient of Global 500 Award, described his father Late Shri. M.A Sreenivasan as the Pradhan of Mysore, the Diwan of Gwalior, was a Member of the Constituent Assembly and Chairman of Kolar Gold Mines and also the Founder President of GMIC, Chairman of Consolidated Coffee and Founder Director of Air India. Filing of writ petitions against the public servants, by engaging Senior Advocates it is well known, is one of the ways of rich and influential people to bring pose threats to the honest public servants and to make them concede to the prayers in the writ petition.”

“……..Shri. M.A Sreenivasan or legal heirs and his present family members could be regarded as influential bureaucrats/persons who have tried to wield undue influence or undue pressure or undue threats even through New Media on respondent-3, the Commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and on respondent-4, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District, against restoring the Waste Weir level of Sankey's Tank, in their efforts to grab the very Sankey's Tank's Water Spread Area, the kharab Hallas and the open area of Sankey's Tank's Tank Bed lying on the Tank's northern side, to portions of which areas, water of Sankey's Tank could be spread as shown in Ex.C-14 Survey Map, when the Tank's waste weir level has been restored.”

“Hence prima facie finding of the Lokayukta on this sub-question or sub-issue is, that Shri. M.A Sreenivasan or his legal heirs and his present family members have not succeeded in unduly influencing or pressurizing the Commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike or the Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District, against restoration work taken by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, involving restoration of Waste Weir of the Sankey's Tank needed to impound the required quantity of rain water flowing into the Sankey's Tank.”

14. Having recorded all these findings, at paragraph 15, this is what has been said:

“Having regard to the findings recorded by the Lokayukta on the Sub-Questions or Sub-Issues (I) to (9) above, the prima facie finding of the Lokayukta on the main issue is, that no initiation of disciplinary action or any other action is required to be recommended by the Lokayukta to the Government, against the respondents (Public Servants) for their official misconduct.

15. After holding that no case for proceedings under the Act against the public servant is made out, in the last paragraph at 16, this is what the Lokayukta has held as under: —

“However, the copies of this Report along with entire documentary evidence and oral evidence pertaining to the above compliant shall be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Karriataka, Bangalore; Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Bangalore, Commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore; Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District Bangalore, so that they may know, how even Public Tanks are sought to grabbed by persons like Shri M.A Sreenivasan who was the Pradhan of Mysore State and prevent such grabbing of the areas of public tanks or attempts to grab the areas of public tanks and to take genuine steps to throw out the grabbers of such tanks, or tank beds, needed for the good of the general public in consonance with the accepted policy of Governments to restore encroached storage water tanks for the general goods of the public. Copies of this Report may be sent to the Complainants for their information. A copy of this Report along with copies of relevant documents on which this report is based, may also be sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for information and appropriate action by him, having regard to the views he had expressed in relation to the Sankey's Tank and its grabbing, before the news media, on his visit and inspection of Sankey's Tank on 15-10-2005.”

16. From the above excerpts of the report it is clear that the Lokayukta has exonerated the public servants. He has recorded a finding that the land which is the subject matter of the dispute did not belong to esrtwhile Maharaja of Mysore. He had no right to sell the property. The petitioner's father has fraudulently obtained registered sale deed and thereafter without any right has sold the property as well as bequeathed the property and therefore persons claiming under such sale deeds, bequest, have no right to the property. It is the property belonging to the State Government. In the course of the said observation, all adjectives are used against the former Pradhan of Mysore, erstwhile Diwan of Gwalior freely after his death. Areading of the report clearly gives an impression that petitioner and his father have grabbed the public property, have fabricated the documents, they are encroachers and by practising fraud they have acquired the property in dispute. The said finding is recorded in a proceedings to which they are not parties, behind their back and without affording them an opportunity to state their case. This finding recorded by the Lokayukta runs counter to the stand of the Government in the earlier writ proceedings where accepting the title of the petitioner and his father, acquisition proceedings were initiated, acquiring the said land for the formation of Rajmahal Vilas layout. A Division Bench of this Court has quashed the said notification. In the Apex Court, by entering into a compromise, the roads formed in the said land were handed over to the erstwhile CITB free of cost thus retaining the remaining extent of land. Therefore the Apex Court has put its seal to the title of the petitioner's father. Though the preliminary Notification and the final Notification is produced before the Lokayukta, without trying to find out what happened to those acquisition proceedings, the Lokayukta has recorded a finding that petitioner's father had no title, contrary to the finding recorded by this Court and the Apex Court.

17. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the questions that arise for consideration is:

(a) Whether the Lokayukta under the Act has the jurisdiction to investigate and hold an enquiry in respect of dispute regarding immovable property belonging to private citizens?

(b) Whether the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner is on the basis of Lokayukta report and therefore is vitiated?

Point No. 1

18. The Administrative Reforms Commission has recommended the setting up of the institution of Lokayukta for the purpose of improving the standards of public administration, by looking into complaints against administrative actions, including status of corruption, favouritism and official indiscipline in administration machinery. It is for making enquiries into the aforesaid matters the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 came to be enacted by the State Legislature (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It provides for appointment of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta for the purpose of conducting investigation and enquiries in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 7 of the Act deals with matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta.

“7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an Upa-Lokayukta.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of.

(i) the Chief Minister

(ii) a Minister or a Secretary;

(iii) A Member of the State Legislature; or

(iv) any other public servant being a public servant of a class notified by the State Government in consultation with the Lokayukta in this behalf,

in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an Upa-Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servant referred to in sub-Section (1), in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta, the subject of a grievance or an allegation.

[(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (1) and (2), the Lokayukta or an Upa-Lokayukta may investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the State Government.]

(3) Where two or more Upa— Lokayukta s are appointed under this Act, the [Lokayukta] may, by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act:

Provided that no investigation made by an Upa-Lokayukta under this Act, and no action taken or things done by him in respect of such investigation shall be open to question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order.

[(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (1) to (3), when an Upa-Lokayukta is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, his function may be discharged by the other Upa-lokayukta, if any, and if there is no other Upa-lokayukta by the Lokayukta]”

19. The Lokayukta may investigate a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation in respect of any action which is taken by or with the general or special approval of a public servant enumerated in sub-Section (1) of Section 7. In respect of all other public servants not covered under sub-Section (1) the Upalokayukta can make an investigation. Therefore, it is clear that the investigation to be conducted by the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokayukta is in respect of a complaint against a public servant only. The word ‘public servant’ has been defined under the Act under Section 2(12). Therefore, the whole object of this Act is to provide for an investigation of a complaint in respect of a grievance or an allegation in respect of an action by the public servant. Though the Act has not defined what a complaint is, it has defined what an action is, what is a grievance and an allegation, under the Act. It is necessary to look into these definitions in order to find out the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta for the purpose of investigation.

20. The Act defines “action” under Section 2(1) which reads as under: —

“”action” means administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes willful failure or omission to act and all other expressions relating to such action shall be construed accordingly.

Therefore, both action and inaction could be the subject matter of investigation by the Lokayukta.

21. A complaint may be a grievance or an allegation. The word “allegation” is also defined under the Act under Section 2(2) which reads as under: —

“2(2) “Allegation” in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant.—

(a) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person.

(b) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives;

(c) is guilty of corruption, favoritism, nepotism, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant; or.

(d) has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he belongs.”

22. “Grievance” has been defined under Section 2(8) meaning a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration.

23. “Maladministration” is also defined under Section 2(1) meaning, action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,

(a) such action or the administrative procedure or practice governing such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or

(b) there has been willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice governing such action involves undue delay.

24. The aforesaid definitions make it clear that in so far as a complaint involving a grievance is concerned, it is a grievance of an individual who is seriously affected by an administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation, or finding or in any other manner and includes willful failure or omission to act. On account of such action the said person has incurred injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal-administration. That is, an action by a public servant which is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action. In respect of such complaints involving a grievance the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta shall pass such orders remedying such injustice or hardship if the grievance is established after an enquiry.

25. In respect of a complaint involving an allegation is concerned, it is an allegation against a public servant alleging that, such public servant has abused his position to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person or he was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motive or is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant or has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he belongs.

26. Therefore, under the scheme of the Act, the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokayukta are conferred power to investigate into a complaint involving a grievance or allegation against a public servant. Section 7 deals with the power and the subject matter of investigation by the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta. The grievance or the allegation should be in respect of an action as defined under the Act. The jurisdiction of Lokayukta and Upa lokyukta do not extend beyond what is specifically contained in Section 7 of the Act. They have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a person other than a public servant as defined under the Act. He has not been conferred any power to investigate a grievance or an allegation against a private individual: He has not been conferred the power to investigate into the title of the property standing in the name of a private individual. He has not been conferred any power to go into the validity of a sale deed, a Will, a gift deed executed by a private individual in favour of another private individual, on the ground that the said subject matter of the alienation is a public property. They are all matters exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Lokayukta cannot usurp the power of civil Court under the guise of investigation under the Act. The investigation to be conducted is only with reference to the action of the public servant, and the abuse of such office, allegations of corruption, nepotism, lack of integrity on the part of public servant, and any illegal gains made by such public servant.

27. Section 8 expressly sets out what are the matters over which the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokayukta has no power to conduct any investigation under the Act. Sub-Section (2)(c) provides the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta shall not investigate any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant. Clause (d) of sub-Section 2 of Section 8 provides that the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta shall not investigate any complaint involving an allegation after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained is alleged to have taken place. The proviso to the aforesaid two provisions make it clear that if the complainant can satisfy that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in those clauses the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta may entertain a complaint preferred beyond the aforesaid period of limitation prescribed. In other words, state claims shall not be the subject matter of investigation by a Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta. Valuable rights accrued to persons by lapse of time should not be denied or deprived to them. It is based on sound public policy. At any rate the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to go into the title of the property, the nature of the property standing in the name of private individuals since long time. The transfer deeds which are duly registered and acted upon for decades cannot be the subject matter of an investigation by the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta under the guise of an investigation under Section 7 of the Act.

28. Section 11 of the Act provides for securing of evidence. It enables the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta in the course of investigation to require any public servant or any other person who, in his opinion, is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation to furnish any such information or produce any such document. They have been conferred with the power of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of any document; receiving evidence on affidavits and other powers which are set out in sub-Section (2) of Section 11. It is after the said investigation Section 12 provides for submission of report of Lokayukta which reads as under:—

“12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.,—(1) If, after investigation of any action involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report.

(2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-Section (I) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa Lokayukta the action taken on the report.

(3) If, after investigation of any action involving an allegation has been made, Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority.

(4) The Competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-Section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa Lokayukta and action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.

(5) If the Lokayukta or the Upa Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-Sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant.

(6) The Lokayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions and that of the Upa Lokayukta under this act to the Governor

(7) On receipt of the special report under sub-Section (5), or the annual report under sub-Section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature.

(8) The Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta may at his discretion make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate.”

29. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 deals with investigation of any action involving a grievance. If after investigation the Lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, he shall by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report. Therefore, the condition precedent for submission of a report to the competent authority is a finding by the Lokayukta that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship. If the finding is that, there is no injustice caused, then there is no cause for the Lokayukta to submit any report. In other words he has to close or drop the investigation.

30. Sub-section (3) deals with investigation of any action involving an allegation. Even in the case of allegations, if the Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority for further action in the matter. Therefore, the condition precedent for submitting the said report is, only when the allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly against the public servants so that follow up action may be taken against them by the Government. If the allegation is not substantiated, there is no question of submitting a report. The Lokayukta has to drop the proceedings or terminate the proceedings.

31. The submission of the report either under Section 12(1) or 12(3) is for the purpose of competent authority examining the report and taking further action in the matter. Therefore, there is no obligation cast on the Lokayukta to submit a report in the case of the allegation being not substantiated or the grievance has not resulted in injustice or undue hardship.

32. Having regard to the object behind this legislation and the clear definitions contained in the Act regarding action, allegation, grievance, maladminstration and the persons against whom the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of both of them is clearly defined. Except the persons who are mentioned in Section 7 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta do not extend to investigation of any action by other persons. Broadly speaking their jurisdiction extends to investigate any action taken by a public servant as defined under the Act.

33. It is in this background we have to look at the complaint in this case, the investigation made by the Lokayukta, the report submitted and the counter filed in this Writ Petition to find out whether the action of the Lokayukta is within the parameters prescribed under law.

34. The grievance of the complainant is that the disputed land belongs to the Forest Department, Government of Karnataka. It is a part of a Government tank, i.e, Sankey Tank. The erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had only the right to enjoy the usufructs of the tree grown in the said land. The erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had no right in respect of the land in question. Sri. M.A Srinivasan has created documents showing that this land has been purchased by him in pursuance of a sale deed executed by the Personal Secretary of the Maharaja. They have misused their position, used the Government officials to get the land mutated in their names. They have used the influence to show that the land belongs to the erstwhile Maharaj a and not to the Government. They have also put up several constructions in the land in question. The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has spent crores of rupees for rejuvenation of the Sankey Tank. The petitioner and his relatives by threatening the Corporation officials have made the Corporation construct three bridges in the Center of the Tank so that they could make use of the same. The Mahanagara Palike has constructed the bridges by misusing the public funds. As the petitioner and his father are all very influential persons, they have influenced the Chief Secretary of the State and trying to grab this land. The request of the complainant to the Corporation officials did not yield any result. Therefore, they requested the Lokayukta to summon those officials and to investigate the misuse of the public property and take appropriate action against all persons who are the cause for injustice.

35. One more complaint was that land measuring 1.2 acres situated between Sankey Tank and Aranya Bhavan belonging to the Forest Department was transferred by the Government of Kamatakato MITL said to be a subsidiary of M/s Indian Detonators, Hyderabad. A huge loss of crores of rupees has occasioned to the Government by this illegal transfer. Therefore, they wanted the land to be restored to the Forest Department and also to save the ecology and valuable land to the Government.

36. From the aforesaid complaint it is very clear that the complainants did not name in the complaint who are the public servants who are responsible for the actions which they have complained of. On the contrary, the sum and substance of the complaint is that the petitioner and his father have created documents and claiming title to the property from the erstwhile Maharaja and they are enjoying the said property illegally. They wanted the said land to be restored to the Government and action to be taken against the officials who are responsible for the same. Therefore, it is clear that it is not a case of a grievance or an allegation as defined under the Act. It is not a case of the complainants having sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. It is not a case of any public servant abusing his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person. It was not a case of corruption, favoritism, nepotism, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. It is not a complaint against any public servant who was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives or has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he belongs. Therefore, a perusal of the complaint clearly discloses that it is not a case of action or inaction of any public servant or action of an allegation or action of a grievance which calls for investigation by the Lokayukta. The complaint did not disclose any grievance or allegation calling for investigation and therefore the question of Lokayukta exercising the Power under the Act did not arise. Under these circumstances as provided under Section 9(5) the Lokayukta ought to have refused to investigate.

37. However, if he so chooses to investigate, the said investigation could be only regarding the grievance or the allegation as defined under the Act. When the allegations are made against the petitioner and his father and they were agitating before this Court by filing Writ Petition, in which Writ Petition he was a party and orders were passed restraining the Corporation from interfering with their property, while in the course of investigation he ought to have issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish information or produce the documents relating to the investigation and to furnish any such information or to produce any such document if he was really interested in getting at the truth of the matter. On the contrary, the complainants did not make the petitioner a party to their complaint. The Lokayukta knowing well that he is dealing with the property which stands in the name of the petitioner did not issue any notice, did not call upon him to produce documents, did not call upon him to substantiate his title. Now in the statement of objections it is stated that as the petitioner is not a public servant, there was no necessity to implead him or his father. If there was no necessity to implead the petitioner and his father as they were not public servants, on the same analogy Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate the title of the petitioner and his father to the property in dispute in their absence. Similarly, he has no jurisdiction to characterize the transactions as fraudulent, characterize them as land grabbers, encroachers, fabricators of documents and persons who have concocted the documents. He also has no jurisdiction to declare that the sale deeds under which they are claiming title are void ab initio. He also has no jurisdiction to declare that the erstwhile Maharaja had no title to this property. In the first place the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to go into the title of the property which was involved in the complaint. Secondly, he has no jurisdiction to declare the registered sale deeds executed 50 years earlier as void ab initio. He has no jurisdietion to declare that neither the petitioner nor his father nor his vendor had title to the property. It is unfortunate that a person of the stature of Lokayukta has not followed the fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner, his deceased father and deceased erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore are condemned unheard. Uncharitable remarks are made against them, which is not in good taste. On the day he initiated proceedings and was passing the remarks neither the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore nor the petitioner's father were alive. The remarks made by him against them are defamatory; and they affect their reputation.

38. In fact this Court had an occasion to consider the right of reputation in the case of Professor S.N Hegde v. The Lokayukta, Bangalore and Others 2004 3 KLJ 505. where it was held as under: —

“The reputation of a man is a very precious thing, the man cherishes most in his life. It is a natural or absolute right of a man. In fact, the whole exercise which a man undertakes in life is to acquire, fame, name and reputation. No office which a man occupies in life is permanent. Therefore, between the removal of the man from that office and damage to his reputation what he is afraid of is damage to the reputation. Office does not last but reputation is permanent. In fact, the reputation outlives a man. Therefore, the wide interpretation placed to the word ‘life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution, leads to inevitable inference that Article 21 of the Constitution not only should be taken to mean protection of one s life and liberty while a person is alive, but equally covers the reputation of a person during his life and after. Any wrong action by the State or its agencies which sullies the reputation of a virtuous person would certainly come under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, it can be said that the right to reputation is a part of right to life, a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution and no person should be deprived of such right except according to the procedure established by law”.

39. This judgment was delivered on 4.2.2004 by this Court to which the Lokayukta was a party and it was delivered in the context of a similar report submitted by Lokayukta. In spite of the same, in the instant case not only an attempt is made to damage the reputation of the petitioner but the reputation of his father, the image and fair name of a person who served this country as Pradhan of the erstwhile State of Mysore, the Diwan of the erstwhile State of Gwalior, a member of the Constituent Assembly. Similarly, the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore who is held in high esteem even to this day by the people of the State is sought to be tarnished on the pretext that he has sold the property which does not belong to him to the petitioner's father. The damage which has been done by such observations in this report cannot be undone. It only shows the Lokayukta has no respect for the law laid down by this Court in a case to which he was a party which was binding on him. He has no respect for the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the title of the property was upheld. It is a matter of serious concern. It is not a conduct worthy of emulation by others. In the circumstances of the case, it gives an impression that he has abused his office to settle personal scores. Lokayukta has overstepped his limits. It is clear case of Abuse of Power.

40. It was contended on behalf of the Lokayukta that, though he had no jurisdiction to go into the title of the petitioner and his father which is the subject matter of these proceedings, as the petitioner is not a party to the said investigation, by the report his right is in no way affected and, therefore, he cannot have any grievance against the report. The damage that has been done by this report is not only to the title of the property of the petitioner but the damage is done to their reputation which is wholly uncalled for. In fact as the material on record discloses, the said report has become the basis for taking action against the petitioner, by the Deputy Commissioner, without any application of mind by him, as he feels the report is binding upon him and he has to take action in pursuance of the same. When the Lokayukta has exonerated all public servants, the question ofhis submitting any report to the Government would not arise in terms of Section 12 of the Act. As stated earlier, only in the event of the Lokayukta being satisfied that any action involving grievance has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant, he shall by a report in writing recommend to the competent authority concerned how to remedy the injustice. In the case of allegation only in the event of he being satisfied either wholly or partly he shall by writing in report communicate his findings to the competent authority. When the finding is that the allegations are not substantiated the question of Lokayukta submitting a report to the competent authority for them to take action in the light of the observations made by him is wholly without jurisdiction. He wants the authorities to take action to restore the encroached storage water tanks for the general good of the public, he wants the Chief Minister of the State to take action in this regard which is wholly uncalled for. The proceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and his father. There is no question of taking any action against them. It is interesting to note that in the same complaint an allegation was made that land measuring 1.2 acres situated between Sankey Tank and Aranya Bhavan belonging to the Forest Department was transferred by the Government to M.I.T.L, said to be a subsidiary of M/s. Indian Detonators Hyderabad. A huge loss of crores of rupees has occasioned to the Government by this illegal transfer. Strangely, even though the said allegation falls within his jurisdiction and it was a complaint against the Public servants, he failed to investigate the said allegation. He did not make any enquiry at all. No reasons are forthcoming for not taking up investigation. Therefore, it is obvious the legal mala fides alleged against the Lokayukta in the facts of the case, in the light of the circumstances set out above, is clearly established and, therefore, his report, at any rate the findings regarding title and the remarks made against the petitioner and his father and the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore lacks bona fides, and are actuated with mala fides and ulterior motives and are liable to be quashed.

Point No. 2

41. Learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta contended that, the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act is not in pursuance of the report. The action is taken in pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant. Whereas the learned Government Advocate submitted that the proceedings were initiated suo motu by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of which he had jurisdiction.

42. In order to appreciate his contention, the learned Government Advocate was asked to secure the records which he has done. The impugned notice clearly sets out as opposite parties, the petitioner and his deceased father. It further states under the heading “subject” that “one P.S Rama Murthy and G.V Muniraju have lodged a complaint against the Chief Secretary of the State, Forest Department and others in respect of Sy. No. 2 of Rajmahal measuring 10 acres 31 guntas which is re-numbered as Sy. Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of the phoding of the said land. It has become necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to enquire under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to appear and show cause why action should not be taken. Now, the learned Government Advocate after perusing the file fairly submitted that there is no complaint received by the Deputy Commissioner from the aforesaid two complainants. The proceedings under Section 136(3) is not initiated on the basis of any such complaint as mentioned in the impugned order. On the contrary the proceedings are initiated on the basis of a letter from the office of the Karnataka Lokayukta enclosing a copy of the impugned report requesting the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, to peruse the same and take needful action. Yet another letter is from the Director of Land Records dated 16.11.2005 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner where he has categorically stated that the Lokayukta has decided that the land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 10 acres 27 guntas do not belong to M.A Srinivasan and he has recommended to the Revenue Department to initiate proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act for cancellation of the revenue records. As the said proceedings are to be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, he is forwarding the said letter with documents for appropriate action. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the Lokayukta that the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) is not at his instance and is not based on the report is incorrect. Similarly, this is not a proceedings initiated suo motu as contended by the learned Government Advocate. It is a proceedings initiated on the report of the Lokayukta on a request made from his office to initiate proceedings coupled with the request of the Director of Land Records to initiate proceedings as the Lokayukta has already declared that the property in dispute does not belong to the petitioner's father. Therefore, the contention that this report is not binding on the petitioner and in no way affects his interest is shown to be false. Now on the basis of this report an attempt is made to annul the revenue records which was there for more than five decades. The power of the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 136(3) suo motu cannot be disputed. But, it must be a proceedings initiated by him on being satisfied that there is a need to initiate such proceedings. In the instant case the Deputy Commissioner who initiated proceedings, is a witness in the investigation conduted by the Lokayukta. Before the Lokayukta he has given evidence stating all that has been done is in accordance with law. The said statement has been accepted by the Lokayukta and, therefore, the Government officials have been exonerated. It is thereafter, the very same witness initiate proceedings at the behest of the Lokayukta on the basis of his report. A person cannot be a witness, a prosecutor, a Judge in the same case. The submissions made on behalf of the Lokayukta and the Government are contrary to the records. The record speaks for itself and fully supports the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated as evident from Annexure-G cannot stand the judicial scrutiny and is liable to be quashed.

43. Under these circumstances, I pass the following order: —

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) All the observations, discussions and findings in the report to the effect that the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore had no title to the property in dispute, he had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner s father, petitioner's. father did not acquire any title under the two sale deeds, petitioner's father fraudulently obtained the sale deeds from the Personal Secretary of the erstwhile Maharaja, that the petitioner's father concocted the documents, fabricated the documents and petitioner and his other family members did not have title either under the sale deed or under the Will and this property is a Government property, and all the findings recorded in respect of the title to the property as well as the extracts at para 17 set out above are hereby, expunged and consequently quashed.

(iii) Similarly, all defamatory and disparaging remarks made against the petitioner, his late father, and erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore are hereby expunged.

(iv) The direction issued in para 16 of the impugned report is also quashed.

(v) Notice issued as per Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

(vi) No costs.