- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Through Lokayukta Police, Raichur v. C.N Manjunath .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arose from conflicting decisions of different Single Judge benches of the Karnataka High Court on whether a licensed surveyor appointed under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is a “public servant” for purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Because of the divergence, the matter was referred to a Division Bench, which in N. Ereshi v. State of Karnataka, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4372, held that such surveyors are indeed public servants. Three sets of criminal appeals were then filed in the Supreme Court:
- Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2017;
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 113-14 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6191-92 of 2012); and
- Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3584 of 2012).
In Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016, the impugned judgment (2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4373) had held that a licensed surveyor is not a public servant. The Supreme Court heard learned counsel for all parties and consolidated the determination of this single legal question.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a licensed surveyor appointed under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 qualifies as a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| N. Ereshi v. State of Karnataka, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4372 (Division Bench) | Held that licensed surveyors performing statutory survey duties fall under Section 2(c) PC Act. | Adopted and affirmed in toto; forms the basis of the Supreme Court’s conclusion that licensed surveyors are public servants. |
| 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4373 (Single Judge, Karnataka HC) | Held that a licensed surveyor is not a public servant. | Overruled by the Supreme Court. |
| 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4374 (Single Judge, Karnataka HC) | Also expressed doubt about surveyors being public servants, contributing to reference to larger bench. | Supreme Court implicitly rejected this view by affirming the Division Bench decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court adopted the Division Bench’s detailed statutory analysis, emphasizing the following points:
- Statutory Duty: Section 18-A authorises the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records to license surveyors specifically to prepare survey sketches mandated under Sections 128 and 131 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
- Government Control: Rules 46-A to 46-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 regulate qualifications, compulsory training, licensing, jurisdiction, fees, and cancellation of licences, demonstrating pervasive governmental supervision.
- Public Function: Preparing survey sketches is a function earlier carried out by Government surveyors. These sketches are used by revenue authorities for mutation and other public records, establishing a clear public interest.
- Statutory Definitions: The licensed surveyor fits within Section 2(c)(i) (“any person remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for performance of any public duty”) and 2(c)(viii) (“any person who holds an office … authorised to perform any public duty”) of the PC Act. The duty qualifies as a “public duty” under Section 2(b) because the State and community have an interest in accurate land records.
Consequently, the Court found “no doubt” that licensed surveyors are public servants for purposes of anti-corruption prosecution.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Licensed surveyors appointed under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are “public servants” under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016 is ALLOWED, while Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2017 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 113-14 of 2017 are DISMISSED.
Implications: The judgment resolves conflicting High Court authority and affirms that licensed surveyors can be investigated and prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It clarifies the statutory status of such surveyors in Karnataka but does not announce a new doctrine beyond applying existing statutory definitions.
Dr A.K Sikri, J.— Leave granted. The issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the respondent who was appointed as licensed surveyor under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) would be treated as “public servant” for the purposes of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988. There was a difference of opinion expressed by the different Benches 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4373 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4374 of the High Court and, therefore, the matter was referred to the larger Bench. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 29-11-2011 in N. Ereshi v. State of Karnataka 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4372 resolved the issue by holding that such a licensed surveyor would be treated as a “public servant” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The material portion of the said judgment reads as under: (SCC OnLine Kar paras 9-12)
“9. For considering the aforementioned issue referred to us, it is necessary to refer to certain of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Karnataka Land Revenue Rules framed thereunder as also the Prevention of Corruption Act.
10. Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 reads thus:
‘18-A. Appointment of licensed surveyors.—(1) The Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records may, for the purposes of the third proviso to Section 128 and of clause (c) of Section 131, issue, with the prior approval of the State Government and subject to such conditions and restrictions and in such manner as may be prescribed, a licence to any person (hereinafter referred to as “the licensed surveyor”) possessing the prescribed qualifications and experience.
(2) The fee payable to a licensed surveyor shall be as may be prescribed.’
11. Section 18-A is inserted by Amendment Act 14 of 1999 with effect from 30-4-1999. The Object of the said amendment is as under:
‘Amending Act 14 of 1999.—Some more than three lakhs of mutation phody cases are pending for measurement and many cases are pending disposal due to change of survey numbers, variation of extent and other reasons, it is considered necessary to entrust the work of preparing sketch of the properties of private surveyors (who will be called as licensed surveyors) who shall possess such qualifications and experience, as may be prescribed by inserting a new section to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
It is also proposed, by amending Sections 128 and 131 of the said Act, to make it obligatory for any person reporting acquisition of right in a partition in respect of land and any person alienating any land, that is part of a survey or sub-number, to get a sketch of the said property prepared by a licensed surveyor.
Hence the Bill.’
12. From the above, it is clear that in order to clear the pending phody cases of about 3 lakhs with regard to measurement, survey sketch, change of survey numbers, etc., licensed surveyors possessing requisite qualification and experience are appointed. The licensed surveyors are required to perform the statutory duty of preparing survey sketches of the properties for the purposes of effecting the changes in the revenue records maintained for public purposes. Section 18-A(1), further makes it clear that licensed surveyors are appointed for the purposes of third proviso to Section 128 and of clause (c) of Section 131 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 18-A(2) mandates that the prescribed fee shall be paid to the licensed surveyors.”
2. The High Court also took into consideration the provisions of Sections 128 and 131 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and distilled the legal position in the following manner: (N. Ereshi case 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4372, SCC OnLine Kar paras 15-16)
“15. Combined reading of Sections 128 and 131 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act makes it amply clear that statutory duty of preparing survey sketches is assigned to the licensed surveyors. Prior to coming into force of Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (relating to licensed surveyors), the very work of preparing survey sketches was being performed by the surveyors of the Survey Department appointed by the State Government. The State Government having found that the existing staff in the Survey Department is not sufficient to cope up with pending work of preparing survey sketches of the properties, thought fit to entrust the work of preparing sketches in favour of the licensed surveyors. Thus, what is assigned to the licensed surveyors is the statutory and official duty of preparing survey sketches under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
16. It is also relevant to note that Rule 46-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 deals with qualification, experience and age for obtaining licence as a licenced surveyor. Rule 46-B mandates that all the persons who apply for licence have to compulsorily undergo training for three months and pass such examination conducted by the Survey Settlement Training Institute of Mysore (by the Government) once in a year, as may be notified. Licence shall be issued by the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Bangalore under Rule 46-C to the successful candidates in the examination conducted by the aforementioned institute on payment of fee of Rs 1000 for a period of one year subject to renewal every year. The register of the licensed surveyors is maintained under Rule 46-D of the Rules by the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records. Rule 46-E prescribes the fee of Rs 300 to be paid to licensed surveyors for preparing the sketch in accordance with Sections 129 and 131 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The jurisdiction of the licensed surveyors also shall be specified in the licence as per Rule 46-F of the Rules. Rules 46-G, 46-H, 46-I and 46-J of the 1966 Rules, prescribe the particulars to be contained in the survey sketch, work specification, scrutiny of the records given by the licensed surveyors and post registration work in Taluk Survey Office, etc., Rule 46-K of the 1966 Rules specifies that the licence issued to the licensed surveyors under Rule 46-A of the Rules shall be cancelled if the licensed surveyors contravene any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules after giving an opportunity of being heard to them.”
3. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, Criminal Appeals Nos. 113-14 of 2017 [arising out of SLPs (Criminal) Nos. 6191-92 of 2012], have been filed.
4. For the purpose of deciding these appeals, we take note of the facts from Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3584 of 2012].
5. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016 is concerned, the Single Judge 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4373 of the High Court has taken a contrary view holding that surveyor is not a public servant. Thus, in all these cases, the issue is as to whether surveyor under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would be treated as “public servant” for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, we are of the opinion that such a licensed surveyor is to be treated as public servant. For this purpose, we are entirely in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4372 as extracted above. We may mention that different Single Judge Benches of the Karnataka High Court had conflicting views and, for this reason, the matter was referred to the Division Bench which has been answered, by the judgment dated 29-11-2011 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4372 as noted above, holding licensed surveyor to be a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For this purpose, the High Court, after taking note of the provisions of Sections 128 and 131 of the Act, came to the conclusion that these surveyors discharge statutory duty of preparing survey sketches. Such a function was earlier performed by the surveyors of the Survey Department appointed by the State Government. As these government surveyors were overburdened with the work, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was amended by inserting Section 18-A therein and the work was assigned to these licensed surveyors. All the activities of the licensed surveyors relating to discharging of statutory duties are controlled by the Survey Department of the State Government. The High Court has observed as under: (N. Ereshi case 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4372, SCC OnLine Kar para 17)
“17. … As aforementioned, qualification, experience and age for obtaining licence as a licensed surveyor, training to be undertaken by the licensed surveyors for getting the licence; getting through the examination conducted by Survey Settlement Training Institute of Mysore every year; prescribing the fees to be paid to the licensed surveyors; cancellation of licence, etc., is done and carried out by the State Government. Even the jurisdiction of the licensed surveyor is specified in the licence issued by the State Government. Thus, it is clear that the licensed surveyors are not only to aid and assist the State Government in its statutory functions, but are also controlled by the State Government in their functioning as licensed surveyors. Thus, the licensed surveyors cannot be termed as mere contractors bound by their engagements, but they are the licensees who are bound by the terms of the office as licensed surveyors.”
7. This legal position is curled out from Rules 46-A to 46-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, read conjointly with Sections 18-A, 128 and 131 of the Act. The aforesaid facts and legal position unambiguously leads to the conclusion that these licensed surveyors are different from those private surveyors who have no licence from the State Government. Once survey report is prepared by these persons, the same is duly acted upon, on the basis of which government functionaries take further action. It is, thus, statutory work of preparing survey sketches which is bestowed upon these licensed surveyors and thus, they are performing statutory duty/public functions.
8. Once the nature of performance of duties gets crystallised, no doubt remains that these licensed surveyors would come within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and particularly clauses (i) and (viii) thereof, which defines “public servant” to mean:
“2. (c)(i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;
***
(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty;”
9. We would also like to refer to the definition of “public duty” as contained in Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as under:
“2. (b) “public duty” means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.”
10. Obviously, in the duties that are to be discharged by these public surveyors, the State or the public has interest therein. It is more so, when these public surveyors are bound by the terms of their office as licensed surveyors viz. the terms on which they are given licence by the Government.
11. As a result, Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2017 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 113-14 of 2017 are dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016 is allowed.
Alert