KRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges Annexure-E order. There was a civil dispute between the predecessor of the petitioner-Jangama Reddy on the one hand and that of the father of the 4th respondent claiming title with respect to the land in Sy. No. 28 situate at Varnasi Village, Bangalore south, Bangalore. That dispute went up to Supreme Court, Jangama reddy succeeding at all stages. To sustain his claim, he had set up title to the property basing on title acquired relying on the entries in Revenue document. Though disputed, the Court relied on these documents to uphold the claim and pass a judgment in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, it appears a complaint was made against the predecessor of the petitioner by the 4th respondent (his father having died by then) to the Government alleging that the documents relied on by Jangama Reddy are forged, the forgery having been perpetuated by the public servant manipulating the public record and therefore it should be enquired into. The Government by Annexures-E and F orders ordered COD enquiry. The said order is questioned before me by the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Suresh S. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarakaram, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Heb- bar for the 4th respondent and Ms. Roja Paramel, learned Government pleader.

(3.) THE short question is as to whether there has been proper application of mind by the Government while issuing Annexures-E and F orders, and as to whether the 1st respondent is justified in issuing annexure-E order and whether circumstances exist for the 1st respondent to order COD enquiry with respect to the allegations made by the 4th respondent.