D SHIVALINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned orders under Annexures 'A' and 'B' deserve to be quashed for want of findings on the questions whether the original grantee belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and whether the land was granted free of cost or for less than the full market value or for an upset price.

(2.) Both the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are silent on the question whether the original grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Further, both the authorities have not gone into the question whether the land was granted to the original grantee for an upset price or for a reduced full market value or free of cost. Finding on such vital issues is essential for the purpose of deciding whether the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could be applied for restoration of the land to the original grantee.

(3.) The authorities ought to realise that by passing such orders the purpose of the Act would be frustrated and grave hardship and loss in terms of money and time would be caused to the parties by unnecessarily compelling them to make frequent excursions to the Court in search of Justice. The Act is an off-shoot of the national policy which is committed to numerous programmes of affirmative action through various measures of preferential treatment to the weaker sections of the people who have been the victims of neglect and exploitation for centuries in a society which unfortunately recognises graded inequality in social life. Such careless orders which reflect lack of identity with the object of the Act and want of motivation, if perpetuated would militate against the legitimate interests of the oppressed sections of the people and the Act would become a mockery of legislative action. It is high time for bureaucracy to think and act with a sense of purpose and administrative will if the concept that sovereignty lies with the people should become a reality and not an illusion. The style of functioning of bureaucracy in the matter of administration and enforcement of the Act leaves much to be desired. I have come across a plethora of cases under the Act wherein the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners have been challenged justifiably for glaring legal infirmities and material irregularities which could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and imagination. Let alone the procedure, but also the substantive provisions of law are thrown to the winds and the interests of the weaker sections of the people and their basic aspirations are brushed aside as if the benevolent legislation has nothing to do with them. 1 have to make these observations in sheer anguish and pain for there appears to be no realisation at all on the part of the errant officials in the discharge of their obligations for sub-serving public interest. Unless a monitoring agency as an instrumentality of the State supervises periodically and systematically, the performance of the bureaucrats who are invested with the power of dispensing justice as quasi- judicial authorities in the administration of benevolent Acts, there appears to be little salvation. This Court has often come down heavily on bureaucratic intransigence, administrative anaemia and lethargy. Though it is not for this Court to suggest to the executive or to the Legislature as to what ought to be done, it cannot be forgotten that a school of thought commends the new role of the judiciary as a senior partner in public administration in a State in the interest of a new and desirable administrative culture.