DASE GOWDA Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case emergent notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why rule nisi should not be issued. In re'sponse to the said notice, the learned High Court Govt Pleader has entered appearance on behalf of Respts-1 & 2. Sri M.N.Venkatanarasimhachar has entered appearance for Respts-3 to 6 and 8. After hearing both the parties, I issued rule. By consent of parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) Respondents 3 to 8 appear to have filed an application claiming obtain relief under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976. According to the petitioner, such an application appears to have been made before the Tahsildar and not the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanagaram, who is the competent authority to deal with matters under the Kar Debt Relief Act, 1976. The complaint of the petitioner is that the first respondent the Asst Commr and Sub-Divl Magistrate, Ramanagaram and the Tahsildar, Channapatna Taluka the second respondent went to the place of the petitioner and asked him to deliver the documents in his possession The case of the petitioner is that, apprehending that the first respondent who is also the Chairman of the Land Tribunal before whom proceeding under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of the petitioner is pending, would get annoyed and decide the case against him, yielded to the threat and delivered the documents demanded by Respts-l & 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing Respts-1 & 2 to return to the petitioner all the documents stated in para 1 of the petition.

(3.) Sri B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Govt Reader, appearing for Respts-1 & 2 placed for my perusal the records which he has received from Respts-1 & 2, from which it is clear that no written order has been made against the petitioner under the Kar Debt Relief Act, 1976. It appears that Respts-1 & 2 made certain oral orders, the effect of which iss to decide the application cf Respts-3 to 8 in their favour and against the petitioner. It is hardly necessary to state that the Kar Debt Relief Act, 1976 does not contemplate any such oral orders being made either by the Sub-Divl Magistrate or the Tahsildar. Apart from stating that an order has been made, there is no record of the said alleged oral order made by the first respondent. Sub-sec(9) of S.5 of the said Act, to which my attention was invited by Sri Mandappa, does not empower the Sub-Divl Magistrate to seize the documents which may be relevant for the purpose of enquiry under the said Act. What the said provision empowers the Sub-Divl Magistrate is to search and seize, under certain circumstances, articles pledged by the debtors. It is not the case of anyone that what were seized from the petitioner are articles which were pledged with the petitioner. They are admittedly documents which were in possession of the petitioner. Hence, it is clear that Respts-1 & 2 have acted arbitrarily in seizing the documents from the petitioner and in proceeding to make oral orders in favour of Respts-3 to 8. As the action of Respts-1 & 2 is clearly arbitrary and de-hors the provisions of the Kar Debt Relief Act, 1978, this writ petition is entitled to succeed. It is also clear that the oral orders made by Respts-1 & 2 have no legal officacy. It is, however, made clear that the allowing of this writ petition does not preclude the Sub-Divl Magistrate from taking action in accordance with the KDR Act, 1976.