K R LAKSHMANA RAO Vs. GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order for quashing the order passed by the 2nd respondent the State of Karnataka and also for his re-instatement in service with all the benefits to which he is entitled.

(2.) The petitioner assumed charge as Tahsildar of Chickballapur Taluk on 27-5-1971. There were about 77 land grant cases (Darkhast) pending disposal. Withi three months, he disposed of all the cases granting 654 acres 12 guntas of land to 238 beneficiaries. The records in those cases were built up before he assumed the charge as Tahsildar of the Taluk. On 27-8-1971 the petitioner passed orders granting 2 acres of land to each of the 7 applicants out of Sy No.40 of Keshavara Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. Before passing those orders, he had received petitions from some villagers objecting to the grant of the land for cultivation on the ground of insufficiency of gomal. He inspected the spot and found that it was not useful for grazing and that hardly 14 acres remain out of gomal, he rejected the objections and made the aforesaid grant. He thereafter issued 'Saguvali chits'. Against this order, petitions were presented by the villagers alleging that the grantees were ineligible to obtain grants on the ground that some of them own lands and pump-sets. On receipt of these petitions the petitioner held a detailed enquiry as required under the Land Grant Rules, recorded the statement of all grantees, verified their statements with Ahwal Takhtee and other revenue records regarding the lands owned by them. He found four of them were landless and that remaining three were insufficient holders. Therefore, he, bona fide believed that the grants were not liable to be set aside and he ordered the issue of 'Saguvali Chits'. Aggrieved persons filed an appeal in RA.3 of 1972-73 before the Assit Commr, Chickballapur Sub Divn, Chickballapur. Further, (Karnataka) Land Revenue Act, 1964 (to be hereinafter called the 'Act') for cancellation of the grant made in favour of the 7 persons. The Deputy Commr of Kolar, called for the records from the Asst Commr and cancelled the grants. The order of the Deputy Commr was challenged by the grantees before the Divl Commr. Bangalore, who set aside foe order of the Deputy Commr and remanded the case to the Assistant Commr for disposal according to law. The matter is still pending before the Asst Commr, Chickballapur Sub Divn, under Sec.49 of the Mysore upon a certain complaint made to the Govt, the Govt ordered departmental enquiry to be held by the State Vigilance Commissioner, under Rule 14A(1) (a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (to be hereinfater referred to as the CCA 'Rules'), against the petitioner in respect of certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner with regard to the grant of land to the seven applicants. The Vigilance Commr nominated the Asst Director of Vigilance as Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry.

(3.) He served the petitioner the article of charge and statement of allegations as per Ext.'A'. The articles of charge against the petitioner is that while he was working as Tahsildar in Chickballapur Taluk on 28-8-1971 granted 2 acres of land in Sy No.40 of Keshavara Village to each of the seven applicants among seventy applicants though all the grantees possessed other lands ana nve of them possessed irrigation pump-sets by making the grant in violation or disregard of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 3 and 8(5) of the Rules of 1969 and the orovisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (to be called a the 'Fragmentation Act'). The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he is not guilty of the charge and that he has not violated any Rules and that the grantees vere all eligible for grant of lands and he also brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer that the matter is pending before the appellate authority. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry and submitted his report of enquiry to the Vigilance Commr. His findings are that Rule 3 of the Land Grant Rules and the provisions of the Fragmentation Act, are not violated, and that the petitioner has acted in utter disregard of Rules 5, 6, 8(4) and 8(5) and also 25 of the Land Grant Rules.